I recently wrote a paper which included, in part, protest
pits. In case you don’t know (I didn’t) protesters
are kept in designated areas in the name of security when there are political
events. This is also a big issue for
abortion demonstrators and was first implemented here in Atlanta in 1988 during
the Democratic National Convention which happened to coincide with abortion
protests.
Since that time demonstration zones have consistently been
used during political events and took on a much more prominent and oppressive
role after 9/11.
The first big political event after 9/11 was the Democratic
National Convention, 2004 in Boston.
During that event protestors were housed under a railroad track, behind
a double fence, with barbed wire at the top of the enclosure, yes enclosure,
there was a fenced top
In order for this structures to be considered constitutional
the government only has to show that their interest is advanced, they do not
have to show that it is the least restrictive means available to advance their
security interests.
In 2004 the DNC was held at the Fleet center, which was
barely visible from the demonstration zone (DZ). Aside from limiting access to the delegates
the DZ limited access to the media, thereby limiting, if not silencing
dissenting speech.
When covering the Republican or Democratic conventions, or other political events where there are protestors, the media covers the political event and the politician’s. They do not take measures to cover the protestors in the designated free speech zones.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that people are unaware
of the political issues at hand and another indication of the spoon feeding
done by the media on behalf of the candidates.
An interesting post. I'm familiar with protest pits and demonstration zones (we have one at KSU, but I was not too familiar with how restrictive they are. The point of a protest is to be heard and spread the word, but if the media is not there to cover the story, then it is a slim chance that anyone outside of the protest will know about it. Unfortunately, the government can pretty much use anything as being in their interest to move a protest.
ReplyDeleteI came across a protest pit when I was at the 2012 DNC in Charlotte. OWS protesters were blocked off on all sides by police and funneled like cattle into an open field surrounded by a fence. The point of a protest is to put pressure on those in power who are abusing their power or not performing their job well. How is this pressure to be applied if the protesters are caged off 100 yards away from the actual location of the political events? The slow destruction of civil disobedience since 9/11 is frightening. All of these actions on the part of police and the government are meant to send messages of dissuasion towards others who may be tempted to voice their dissent. Since when did it become illegal to peacefully assembly? If I try to speak out, I will be arrested and have a blemish on my record. And for what? For being an active citizen.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I remember when KSU swapped the venue for the religious fanatics who chastised students (all students) from outside the social science building to the new and improved "free speech zone" on the corner of the campus green. I must admit, I rather enjoyed watching them herded into the corral like cattle waiting for the slaughter, but your post brings up the other side of the coin. What coverage can demonstrators hope to achieve if they are put completely out of sight and out of mind? The Constitution and Bill of Rights were put in place to protect our civil liberties using vague language as a necessary means to pass into existence. Unfortunately, we humans have a general lack of perverting original intentions, and these protest pits seem to fall into that category. I came from the physical security world myself, so I can relate to a need for certain amounts of distance and physical restraints systems such as fences. There is, however, a line that completely degrades the protest and in my opinion, violates our First Amendment rights. The pictures that you posted above seem to be a far cry from legitimate protest arenas. This appears (from a distance at least) to be a heavy handed approach in quelling dissent amongst minorities. There has to be a middle ground between maintaining proper security measures and still allowing protesters to have their views expressed as well; the issue is that the people controlling the security measures are not always the most open minded individuals, especially when it comes to the political realm.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting analysis of how the Constitutionally-protected right to assemble can be confined and interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, we all have the right to assemble, but as we've seen with other rights in the Constitution, this is not an absolute right.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but we've seen that that is not an absolute right. You can't scream fire in a movie theater, for example. But the elements of the right that are truly vital to conducting a free society are still in place. We've seen virtually every right in the Constitution amended in some form or fashion.
Whether or not protest pits are too restrictive and ultimately dismiss the actual purpose of the right remains to be seen. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I think that everybody's voice needs to be heard. On the other hand, if protesting was allowed everywhere on private property, then nothing could be done in an orderly fashion. Political conventions would be crashed, the campus would be a madhouse, etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn eye-opening post. It just goes to show how much power we really do not have over our "freedom of speech." It feels like as the days go on, our amendment rights grow smaller and smaller. The government likes to make us feel free with granting us things like protest pits and demonstration zones. What they don't show is many of these areas are like the images you posted above. What's the point if others and the media can’t hear us? The word will never spread in this instance. Even if it did get around to the media, would news sources even report on the matter at that point? News spoon feeds the viewers. I believe they keep the protestors at a distance for a reason. I agree with Aaron's comment as well.
ReplyDeleteI never knew that there had to be an allotted space for disenting speech for big, televised events. I knew that there had to be a freedom of speech zone due to the "preachers" that come on our campus. It's amazing what public funding does.
ReplyDelete