textfiles-politics/politicalTextFiles/demonreg.txt

                  Demonstration Regulation
                             by
                         Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <6/4>

     Abortion demonstrations got out of hand.  Something had to
be done.  We now have specific laws governing abortion protests.
     It was done in a good cause.
     Of course there was harassment.  There were bombings.
There were even two murders.  That would certainly appear to
justify the special laws.
     Unless we consider it has been rather tame compared to
unions while on strike.  Not much different from the Vietnam
or civil rights protests either.
     Even though demonstrations are protected by the 1st
amendment as a matter of free speech it is reasonable to
have some minimal regulation simply to assure peace and
orderliness.  For example, if people wish to speak in public
parks it is reasonable to ban loudspeakers.  It is not reasonable
to ban loudspeakers only for particular subjects.  That we call
censorship.
     With demonstrations it is reasonable to provide regulations
that assure public access is not blocked save upon a specific
permit being granted such as to hold a parade or to for such a
large crowd in a park as to deny access to normal public use.
     What is not reasonable is to apply unique requirements to
demonstrations based solely upon what is being protested.  Thus
there is a large number of people, perhaps a majority, who are in
favor these unconstitutional laws because they are in a good
cause.
     I have written many times of the loss of rights in a good
cause.  Here is a clear and present good cause and loss of
rights.  Which side do you fall on?
     Rather I ask which good cause will approve of next time to
limit our right of free speech?  If these laws pass
Constitutional muster or even if they are simply allowed to stand
then we have taken another step toward the end of the right of
free speech.
     These steps have been coming slowly after decades of
establishing it completely.  It was effectively won against
censorship of pornography when the omnipotent "for the children"
argument was raised and there are dozens of draconian state and
federal laws prohibiting it.  Regulating, vice prohibiting, all
pornography has been argued and that form of regulation lost.
Now we have accepted strict censorship by type rather than by
nature.
     These are two steps to clear and offensive censorship,
limitations upon the freedom of speech by subject matter.  The
more often it is accept the easier it is to accept the next.
Watch for more to come.

                            * * * * *

      Further distribution is encouraged by the author.