Читать книгу American Democracy in Context - Joseph A. Pika - Страница 143

In addition to the freedoms of speech and of the press, the First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Such assembly is essential to the free exchange of ideas. It is at the basis of everything from political parties to protest marches. But like other First Amendment freedoms, it is not absolute. As with speech, there are certain time, place, and manner restrictions. In other words, the freedoms of speech and assembly do not mean that people can assemble anytime, anywhere, and say whatever they want however they want. Just as students are not completely free to disrupt algebra class with political speech, the right of assembly must be balanced against other interests such as traffic safety, noise restrictions, and trespass laws.

For example, as part of the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, Harriet Adderly and other university students assembled outside a jail in Tallahassee, Florida, to protest racial segregation and the earlier arrest of fellow civil rights demonstrators. However, their assembly took place on restricted property. The county sheriff warned them to move their protest elsewhere, but the protesters refused and were arrested for trespassing. The Supreme Court upheld their subsequent convictions, noting that the trespass statute was designed to further the security of the jail. Moreover, the protesters had no lack of notice, the law was clear and uniformly applied, and the arrest took place not because of the content of the protesters’ speech but because of their conduct: where they were saying it.⁷²

In contrast, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of civil rights protesters who were arrested on the grounds of the South Carolina state capitol. Unlike the jailhouse grounds, the area around the state capitol was open to the public and was considered a public forum: a place where people traditionally gather to express their views. And in contrast with the trespass ordinance in Florida, the breach of the peace ordinance that police used to arrest the protesters in South Carolina was vague and randomly applied. In fact, the breach of the peace was caused more by agitated onlookers than by the protesters themselves, who were peacefully singing hymns and songs such as “We Shall Overcome.” In this case, the arrest did appear to be based upon the content of the protesters’ speech and therefore violated the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly.⁷³

Once again, it is sometimes difficult to determine when assembly is permissible and when it is not, especially in trying to determine precisely which locales constitute a public forum. Balancing public safety concerns with First Amendment rights can also be tricky. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois—home to a large Jewish population—could not deny a permit for a march by the American Nazi Party.⁷⁴ Many in Skokie viewed it differently. They equated the Nazi march with constitutionally unprotected “fighting words” that would provoke a riot. In a 1942 case, the Supreme Court had suggested that some words are so inflammatory, so certain to provoke a violent response, that they are not deserving of free speech protection.⁷⁵ Others insisted that preventing the march would constitute a prior restraint; if a breach of the peace or riot ensued because of the march, the conduct should be punished after the fact. In the end, a federal court forced the City of Skokie to permit the Nazis to march.

Consider, too, the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose 75 members have staged hundreds of protests to highlight their belief that the ills of the United States—from the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters—are God’s punishment for a society that condones homosexuality. They first gained national attention by picketing the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a college student who was beaten to death in 1998 because he was gay. Their signs proclaimed that Shepard was in hell because “God Hates Fags.” More recently, the church has targeted funerals and burials of American soldiers killed in Iraq—carrying signs such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates Your Tears”—because they believe that U.S. combat deaths are an example of God’s just retribution for homosexuality in America.⁷⁶

time, place, and manner restrictions The stipulation that the freedoms of speech and assembly do not mean that people can assemble anytime, anywhere, and say whatever they want, however they want.

Such actions provoked the Southern Poverty Law Center to label the church a hate group. More than half the states have passed laws restricting graveside demonstrations. Congress also entered the fray by passing the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228) to establish buffer zones around military cemeteries during burials; President George W. Bush signed it into law on May 29, 2006. Only three members of the House of Representatives voted against the bill. One was Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and 2012. Another was Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts. Both questioned the constitutionality of the law and argued that it violated civil liberties. The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the constitutionality of the law, but in 2011, it did reject a lawsuit brought against the Westboro Baptist Church by the family of a soldier whose funeral was picketed. The picketers stayed outside a 1,000-foot buffer zone from the church, and the Court upheld the picketing on free speech grounds.⁷⁷ In European countries that have laws regulating hate speech, regulating such demonstrations would be much easier; the free exercise rights (see below) of the Westboro Church would not be as much of an issue as it is in the U.S. Although Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” the Article goes on to say that the freedom of religion can be limited in the interests of “public safety … the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”