A news
article in the Christian Science Monitor last week was headlined: AZ: Inspired by Trump, new state law redefines free speech.
Naturally, as a lifelong devotee of the First Amendment, I was curious to find
out exactly what this was all about so I clicked on the hyperlink in the RRND to read the
full story.
The headline
implied that Donald Trump somehow manipulated the Arizona legislature into passing
a law redefining the meaning of free speech. Of course, if that were true, such
a law would be unconstitutional.
But (as is too
often the case with the news media) the editor who wrote that headline was only
demonstrating his ignorance of First Amendment law. Instead of redefining the
meaning of free speech, the new Arizona law would penalize those attempting to
deny others their First Amendment rights.
Yes, the law
was inspired as it were by a Trump campaign event in a Phoenix suburb where a
bunch of protesters had parked about two-dozen cars in the middle of a highway affording
Trump supporters their only access to the event.
The
protesters displayed signs saying: “Dump Trump,” and “Must Stop Trump,” which,
of course, was a perfectly permissible expression of their First Amendment
rights, however, the conduct of blocking a public highway to prevent others
access to a campaign event had nothing to do with exercising free speech.
Blocking a highway, if intended as a means of expression is not protected speech.
It’s a
crime.
I saw the televised
news accounts of the incident and was disgusted with the anti-Trump protestors
for their outrageous conduct. The cops had every right to arrest the culprits
and haul their vehicles off the highway to be impounded. It was this occurrence
which “inspired” the new law which increases penalties on protestors who block
traffic to political events.
"That
hopefully will create a deterrent for people intruding on others' abilities…There's
a balance here of everyone getting their voice heard… If someone is physically
preventing someone from participating in exercising their constitutional
rights, that is unacceptable," explained a government spokesman.
The new law
addresses two objects. On the one hand it increases
the penalty for anyone found to have intentionally
blocked traffic for access to a political campaign event or
government meeting or hearing to a six-month jail sentence. It also prevents
state universities and community colleges from limiting where free speech can
be exercised. In short, the law prohibits so-called "free speech"
zones on college campuses, which attempt to confine constitutional free speech
activities of students.
The bottom
line is that protesters have First Amendment free speech rights; they have the
right to protest; but they do not enjoy the right to deny others the right to
free assembly and free speech. The new
Arizona law in no way re-defines free speech – on the contrary, it enhances the
First Amendment right of freedom of speech and assembly.
Blocking a
highway is not protected free speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment