Free Speech? Not in America.

I thought I was cynical about free speech in America because it seems like only those who own the media can afford free speech. But, it turns out, I'm not cynical at all. It should be clear by now to diligent Monkeyfist readers that there's going to be a big wave of protests at the upcoming World Bank & International Monetary Fund meetings in D.C. Most of the big action will happen on or around April 16th.

But the Park Police and Metropolitan Police (acting on their own?) have already decided that there will be no free speech or dissent in D.C.

The folks planning the protests report that police have

informed us that during WB/IMF meetings the buildings will be declared a Diplomatic Foreign Mission. This means a two square block first amendment free zone plus an as yet to be determined cushion area.

This means that the police are abusing the rules of diplomatic tradition to short-circuit the right to free speech by declaring the WB/IMF meeting facilities 'off-limits' to any citizens who might want to express their opinions. It's one thing to sort out protesters from other people during tense times to avoid having people hurt. But it's another thing altogether to restrict freedom of speech, weeks in advance, in anticipation of problems.

I'm not a lawyer but this sounds like a kind of 'prior restraint'. The Massachusetts Bar Assocation says this about 'prior restraint':

Because the prohibition against censorship lies at the core of the First Amendment's protection of speech and press, the Supreme Court has characterized prior restraint (an order censoring speech or prohibiting publication before the information becomes public) as "one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence," and "the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."

Whether prior restraint may be invoked to restrain an activity before it takes place turns on the level of constitutional protection afforded to the activity. The analysis turns on several factors: Is the activity speech or conduct? If it is speech, is it speech protected by the First Amendment? If it is constitutionally protected, what degree of protection is afforded?

Time, place and manner restrictions -- When speech is mixed with conduct, as in demonstrations, parades or picketing, reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions may be imposed by law or ordinance so long as the restrictions are "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest." Restrictions may not be administered in a discriminatory fashion and may not be premised on the content of the speech.

Of course the police will claim that the 'significant governmental interest' is the old standby 'public order and public safety', but surely there are other 'significant governmental interests' being served too? Interests like preventing an outbreak of democracy (a 'crisis of democracy' in Samuel Huntington's infamous words), or preventing embarassment to the President, or preventing the hoi polloi from effectively protesting their demise at the hands of the elites.

What do these restrictions mean practically? They will not prevent the WB/IMF meetings from being shutdown, just like the WTO was shutdown in Seattle. That will happen, as scheduled. It's just going to cost the brave women and men who will accomplish it more than it would have otherwise. And it will make the next big protest even more dangerous for the protesters.