Free speech and the G-8, NATO summits
Comments (...)The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Jan. 13:
——
(MCT) — America was born in protest — remember the Boston Tea Party? — and the framers of the Constitution took special care to assure citizens the right to assemble to voice their opinions on all manner of issues.
Government officials often regard mass demonstrations as a bad thing because they interfere with traffic, produce noise and demand police resources. In fact, they are a good thing: an exercise of vital rights in a democracy.
Yes, they can be a nuisance. But as long as they are peaceful and reasonably orderly, they are worth the trouble.
In May, Chicago will host many of the world’s most influential leaders at the G-8 and NATO summits, and it will host thousands of protesters drawn by the summits. These events have become a magnet for people from around the world, and sometimes the protests have turned disruptive and violent.
The summits will disrupt the routine of the city’s bustling center, that’s a given. Be ready for barriers that close off sections of downtown and motorcades that stop traffic. It’s a price of placing Chicago at the center of such an international event.
But how to get French President Nicolas Sarkozy or German Chancellor Angela Merkel safely from point A to point B will be the easy part.
The greater challenge will be to keep the city flowing as it assures that citizens can exercise that right to assemble and voice their opinions.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration has proposed a set of rules for public protest. The rules, which go to the City Council next week, would remain in place for the city after the world leaders and the protesters go home.
For the most part, the rules are reasonable. Giving the police superintendent the power to deputize officers from other states would address the city’s main security concern: having enough security in place. Higher penalties for resisting arrest? No problem. Don’t resist the police when they’re trying to keep order.
The city has wisely decided to ease some of the more stringent parade regulations that were originally proposed. Officials will not try to register a marshal for every 100 parade participants, and they’ll keep the time limit for demonstrations at 2 hours and 15 minutes.
So far so good, but in some respects, the city still plans to impose rules that could chill free speech. A $1 million insurance requirement for protest organizations? That’s unreasonable, even if the city promises that poorer groups could get a waiver. It doesn’t seem necessary to close the parks for an extra two hours overnight.
“People have the right to express themselves, and they will. I also have the responsibility to enforce the law, which we will. Those two are not in conflict,” Emanuel said recently.
Exactly. His administration can assure that if it works closely with organizations that plan to demonstrate. So far, it seems the city is handling the first batch of permit applications in a timely manner, hoping to avoid protracted legal battles over who gets to stand where and march when.
At a background briefing Thursday, city officials assured us they will meet with protest groups to decide where to put “free speech” zones around McCormick Place.
Norm Stamper was Seattle’s police chief in 1999, when violent protests disrupted the city in the midst of a World Trade Organization summit. He says the greatest mistake the host city made was failing to gain the full cooperation of leaders of the protests.
“You absolutely must forge a relationship with demonstration leaders,” he told us.
“If there’s a chance that all those stakeholders, assembled as part of a planning group, can make decisions jointly, you’ll have defenders of police officers in the crowd.”
Some cities are acting on such advice. Tampa, preparing to host the Republican National Convention this summer, is relaxing permit restrictions. It promises that protesters will not be shuttled off to the far corners of the city; they’ll be as close to the action as safely possible. The Philadelphia police chief requires that officers read the 1st Amendment before starting a shift.
Aldermen should ask plenty of questions as they consider the palette of proposed rules. They need to protect the city, and the great American tradition.
Comments
Total Comments 0 View/Add Comments |
There have been no comments made about this story. |
