A related question is why doesn’t the first amendment argument hold if I want to stage a rally in a Smithsonian museum at 3:00 a.m.? Are my first amendment rights being violated when they lock the doors at 5 pm?
It is clear that that was an option by the organizers, but then they got the permission on First Amendment grounds.
Because public parks are different from museums for the purposes of the First Amendment, just like the sidewalks outside abortion clinics are different from the insides of those clinics.
I’m not saying the First Amendment isn’t being used as a political fig leaf here, since I haven’t looked closely at the issue, but it is true that certain public places cannot be closed to First Amendment activity even if they are otherwise closed to all comers.
So I can cross the barricades at all the monuments during the shutdown as long as I carry a sign saying “NObamacare”?
It depends on a lot of facts I don’t know. Generally, the rule is that public parks, streets, and sidewalks are considered “traditional public forums.” Speech in such forums can be regulated as to time, place, and manner, but cannot be categorically prohibited. I doubt there is any precedent addressing whether closing traditional public forums during a government shutdown constitutes a reasonable time, place, or manner regulation.
My guess is that a lot of the monuments don’t count as traditional public forums anyway, for various reasons having to do with their legal status under statutes and facts concerning how open they are to the public during normal hours, etc. etc. Obviously, the park on the National Mall is pretty much going to count as a park.
But your suggestion that reference to First Amendment law is obviously and unavoidably a partisan fig leaf is just wrong. There are real issues here.
I’m not suggesting that. I’m trying to understand this. The WWII memorial was originally closed to the vets. According to Rep. Pallazo Interior initially refused his request that the vets could visit the WWII memorial. The vets went around the barricades and park police didn’t stop them. Seems like optics is what allowed the vets to be able to visit the monument…not the first amendment.
Before the shutdown the park service spokeswoman said:
Now, I assume any rally or protest requires a permit. Looks like they were planning to cancel everything. Did the entire administration forget about the first amendment when that was decided?
Of course, the monuments were not closed during the 95/96 shutdowns. Sure, the information booths were closed but people were allowed to walk on the mall and climb the steps to the Lincoln memorial, etc. What’s different this time?
Yeah, I think that might well be true, especially since the planned activity does not seem especially First Amendment-y. But I don’t think that suggests anything about whether the decision to let the immigration rally proceed was similarly political or not.
It is entirely plausible that they didn’t seriously consider the First Amendment implications of revoking all permits until after that announcement. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been involved in cases where governments (usually local governments) tried to close down public spaces for one reason or another and, when presented with the issue, realize they just hadn’t fully considered the First Amendment implications.
It could also have been a bluff, and they never intended to try to actually cancel all the permits. I don’t know.
I don’t think your premise is true. AFAIK, most of the monuments were indeed closed.
According to this article the open air monuments were still open.
Now, the Capitol being closed I can understand. But the open air memorials? What’s changed?
Given the photo evidence of the closure of the Lincoln memorial, I’m not sure I find that news account persuasive. According to the Congressional Research Service, the last shutdown resulting in the closure of 368 National Park Service sites including “closure of national museums and monuments (reportedly with an estimated loss of 2 million visitors).”
But to the extent there have been differences, I see a lot of plausible possibilities, including politics.
According to this site it was closed for a portion and open for a portion. There should be an easier way to get an answer to this question.
I don’t get the First Amendment argument either. Sure, people can come together and protest. But do they have the right to do it 1) where and 2) when they want. If someplace is closed, it seems that they then have the right to go exercise the first amendment rights someplace else.
The answer, I’m sorry to say, appears to be much simpler. If you’re on Obama’s side, “Sure, we can make an exception for you”.
By the way, is that a construction barricade on the left side of that picture?
Well, not to Godwinize this thread, but the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the Nazis could march in a heavily Jewish suburb on Yom Kippur. So, um, yeah.
And that’s a fine opinion, but it’s not the law.
It does look like work is being done on the site. Notice the signs don’t reference the government shutdown. This picture shows no barricades and a sign referencing the government shutdown. Notice the sign says the national park sites are temporarily closed to visitor services.
Doesn’t the first amendment also guarantee “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
IMHO, the peaceful assembly clause is the relevant portion of the First Amendment that should apply equally to Immigration protesters and to visiting WW II vets.
In De Jonge v. State of Oregon (1937) the SCOTUS wrote “the right to peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.”
Of course it is not being applied equally at the present.
Right. So the veterans should have been kindly but firmly told to toodle on. Wouldn’t you agree ?
You can’t have it both ways. Either both crowds have the right to suck it, or both have the right to proceed. If you make a specific distinction between them then *that *would, in fact, be shamelessly partisan.
Yes. And people seem to be walking in the area. Which makes sense to me. Closed down the services (information) but allow people to just walk about.
No. It’s one thing to allow individuals to visit the memorial, it’s another thing for the government to facilitate that. So, if there were no barricades, the vets could have just visited as they planned to. Same with non-vets of any stripe. But if you want to hold a rally and you need the government’s assistance and have to bring it toilets, sound equipment, etc., “Sorry, you’ll have to come back when we’re up and running.”
But nice try, though.
So, what is the law? Can people go anywhere they want at any time they want to exercise free speech? Of course not. I can’t come to your living room. I can’t demand to go into the White House at 3 AM. I think you’re a lawyer, I’m not, so what are the restrictions. Also, aren’t there a different set of rules for large groups?