Play Fair With the Protesters

U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess could hardly have been more critical of city officials and their attempt to muzzle protesters at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. “Convenience can never predominate over the 1st Amendment,” Feess wrote last week in voiding the city’s convention security zone, which wrapped the entire downtown convention site for several blocks in most directions. The city had “made no attempt to accommodate or balance the [free] speech interests of the protesters against the need for security at the convention site,” the judge added. While rightly recognizing that Los Angeles has a strong, legitimate interest in keeping the peace, the judge also railed against the city’s restrictive parade and park use procedures and its “overly broad” demand for 40 days of notification for a protest permit.

The city, to avoid the further ire of the court, should swiftly present a plan for demonstration areas that avoids the current overkill. Decisions about the specific protest zones and permit procedures should come from talks among the city, federal authorities and the protesters’ legal representatives, a give-and-take that comes very late in the process. As it is, the dispute is turning into an unstable cops-versus-protesters fight, diverting the focus from the issues between the protesters and the politicians.

Time is running out, with the convention just three weeks away. The city cannot afford to make tiny concessions, one at a time, hoping to gain the court’s favor. That would only encourage a reluctant federal judge to assume a greater role. Feess has already, for example, demanded that the city issue permits to specific protest groups. The city has to find a better balance between civic order and constitutionality, and fast.

Allowing protesters closer to the action may indeed push up the cost of security for the convention and place a greater personnel burden on the Police Department. Balancing security needs with the right to free speech is one of the costs of hosting such an event.

As Feess pointed out in voiding the city’s security zone, “The government cannot infringe on 1st Amendment rights on the mere speculation that violence may occur.” The city should of course be prepared to act decisively and appropriately if things do get out of hand, but restrictions before the fact should be based on restraint and respect.