Stardate 20010820.1438 (On Screen): Having seen anti-globalization riots take place in Seattle and Genoa, apparently the next scheduled riot is to occur in Washington DC next month, to coincide with a meeting of the IMF. Like the anti-war protesters who rioted in 1968, the current anti-globalization protesters know that they'll get the best news coverage when things get violent. Plenty of opportunity for marvelous film, to appear on the nighly news.
The DC police have a plan, though. They're going to close some streets and put up temporary fences, and channel the protesters away from the meeting. They'll be allowed to march and chant and to carry signs, just not anywhere near the building where the meeting will take place. This is not exactly what the protesters had in mind, and they've gone to court claiming a violation of their civil rights.
As best I can determine, the relevant constitutional point is the last part of the First Amendment, which preserves the "right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The word "peacably" was carefully inserted there; it means that you don't have a right to disrupt. There's also a long history of court cases which say that the state may control where you're permitted to protest as long as it is not an unreasonable restriction. The government can't say "You can only protest in the middle of Death Valley", for instance. But it is instructional to consider anti-abortion protests. Laws have been passed and upheld by the courts which prevent protesters from coming closer than a certain distance from a clinic, or of making noises sufficiently loud to disrupt operation of the clinic, or of impeding the movement of people into and out of the clinic. They're permitted to protest, but they're not permitted to use force to prevent the clinic from operating. It seems to me that this is essentially what the DC police are trying to do. The protesters will be given a place to march, but will not be permitted to get sufficiently close to the meeting to disrupt it. I don't think that this does violate anyone's right. There's no right to riot or to throw rocks at the cops. And there isn't any right to a 30 second spot on the evening news. There isn't any right to prevent someone else from meeting. (discuss)
