Staff Blog
Independence Park grants activists permit to demonstrate this Saturday, but some restrictions apply.
When Pennsylvania Friends of Animals (PFA) demonstrate against the horse-drawn carriage industry this Saturday, they'll be able to gather on any sidewalk in the Independence National Historical Park in groups of up to twenty, soliciting petition signatures and distributing leaflets -- just so long as they're not within 20 feet of a building entrance or exit, or within 12 feet of a street corner.
Those were the terms of the permit negotiated between PFA and the Park over the past two days, and signed this afternoon by U.S. District Court Judge John Fullam. These terms may seem extreme for a free-speech demonstration on, well, the doorstep of Independence Hall (site of the signing of the U.S. Constitution).
After all, the buffer zones imposed on PFA are even more extreme than the buffer zones that used to exist around Pittsburgh abortion clinics before they were invalidated last month by the Third Circuit -- on the grounds that the existence of the zones intruded upon the First Amendment rights of abortion protestors.
And those weren't the most severe restrictions that the Park tried to attach to Saturday's permit. Originally, the Park asked that PFA demonstrators keep 20 feet away from "any pedestrian crossway", which would only leave them access to the very middle of each sidewalk.
In the end, according to ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper, Judge Fullam "split the baby". He ruled that activists could not gather within 12 feet of any crossway -- but could enter the 12-foot buffer zone to hand someone a leaflet and then retreat. "It is so much more than the Park Service was willing to give in the past that we consider it a great victory," Roper said.
Still unresolved, of course, is the issue of why activists should have to hire ACLU attorneys and sue Independence Park before they're granted one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed to U.S. citizens. But one step at a time. City Paper will be at the PFA protest on Saturday to see how well both sides honor the permit.
The terms weren’t negotiated – Judge Fullam told the parties that would be his ruling, so there was no choice as to the terms.
There is no basis for the restrictions, and the fight will continue for the Park Service to respect the constition.
Well, that’s how it works under the constitution. The courts ruling stands. The Park Service seems like the are trying to do the right thing and keep access open for pedestrians. Our rights have restrictions on them. You can’t yell bomb on an airplane. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater, well you can if there is a fire and a bomb. The second amendment requires a permit doesn’t it? I don’t see the ACLU challenging that? The government can have certain requirements that are within reason. For instance, Federal Background checks to buy a gun.
Bill – that’s not how the constitution, or even legal precedent, works. The First Amendment provides freedom of speech. That has been interpreted to mean that protests, etc. are allowed on in any public interest unless the government can show a compelling state interest for abridging the speech. There is NO state interest in preventing free speech in the Independence Park area, let alone a compelling one! If this doesn’t scare you, you’re not paying attention. The Park Service would require you to get a permit if you just wanted to walk down Chestnut Street between fifth and sixth holding a sign. That is messed up.
“public interest” = “public right of way”
The Park Service clearly doesn’t give a hoot about the Constitution. Bill, do you know why the First Amendment is “FIRST?” Because the founding fathers understood, what you clearly do not, that free speech is absolutely necessary to democracy. Without free speech – we have nothing. I don’t know how anyone who values the First Amendment can think this is a victory … there is no reason to have a permit to exercise free speech as long as it does not impede ingress or egress or violate any other laws. Obviously I am talking about the peaceful leafleting and picketing – this is completely protected by the Constitution and this article makes a good point that this judge issued more restrictions on this group at Independence Park than what is imposed on anti-abortion people at a healthcare facility (which by the courts is afforded greater protection).
Julia Hart, the reporter, is right to question why on earth the Park Service is fighting the free speech rights of Americans — there is no mention of any problems with these protesters and therefore the Park Service’s restrictions are meritless.
I hope the ACLU isn’t going to let this go .. these restrictions are ridiculous and illegal.
[...] National Historical Park to protest the horse-drawn carriage industry. They were there by dint of a hard-won permit from the Park, which gave them access to all sidewalks on Park property but prohibited them from [...]
The state government has no say on Federal Land. Federal guidelines are what has to be followed. Almost every park in the NPS requires a permit. So you are saying 30,000 KKK members can show up and protest against minorities without even telling anyone? I don’t think so. Commercial speech, hate pseech, slander/lible are not protected. The government has a right to take action there. I see nothing wrong with the park’s request of “let us know you are going to be there…” And pedestrians have right of way….period. What if a pedestrian couldnt get by and stepped into the street and got hit by a car? It would be the park services fault because they didn’t provide sidewalk access and allowed it to be blocked. Again, the constitution says we have a right to keep and bare arms….so why can I just walk around with a gun w/o a permit?
There is nothing wrong with requiring permits. So long as they are used to help better manage the area being used and ensure the visiting public is afforded the rights they have to access the sidewalks and parks. We have a right to walk down the sidewalk and not have to slalom through protestors with signs.
Does anyone think about where these horses are going to go when carriages get outlawed? They won’t be living out their lives on a farm, they will likely end up in the proverbial glue factory.
The Supreme Court ruled on the use of permits. They are not against the first amendment.
“The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.” Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, p. 516 (1939)
Bill – there are already laws that address obstruction of traffic. And no one is arguing that a permit should not be required for a group of 30,000. We’re talking one person here. Under the park service’s current regulations, a permit is required for ONE person to carry a sign or leaflet. And on certain parts of the area, like the entire block of 6th, the regulations say no free speech activity is allowed! THAT is unconstitutional because it DOES abridge free speech. The City of Philadelphia only requires a permit for demonstrations with 75 people or more, or which will obstruct traffic (e.g. a parade.) There is no reason for city streets that happen to also be Federal property should be any different.
1 person really? It says up to 20. 20 people can easily block a sidewalk from pedestrian traffic…one person I might agree with you
This particular permit allows 20. But the Park Service requires a permit for even one person wanting to engage in First Amendment activity.