In the United States, free speech zones (also known as First Amendment zones, free speech cages, and protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.
Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",Bailey, Ronald. Orwellian "Free Speech Zones" violate the constitution. Reason, February 4, 2004. Retrieved on January 3, 2007.McNulty, Rebecca. Fla. College Student Successfully Fights Campus 'Free Speech Zone'. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Student Press Law Center, June 28, 2005. Retrieved January 3, 2007. and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them out of sight of the public.
Although free speech zones existed prior to the presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9/11 America . March 28, 2003. These zones continued through the presidency of Barack Obama, who signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests. Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free-speech-zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits, while generating debates amongst policymakers, academics, and even courts on the constitutionality and impact on discourse.
History During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up a "designated protest zone"Warren, Susan. "Protests cause Young to boost police presence", Houston Chronicle, July 19, 1988. Retrieved from on April 24, 2017. so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."Blake, Andrew. "Atlanta's Steamy Heat Cools Protests; More Than 25 Groups Rally in Demonstration Area", Boston Globe, July 20, 1988. Retrieved from Proquest on April 24, 2017. "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.Riccardi, Nicholas. "Convention planners wary of a new style of protest". Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2000. Retrieved April 24, 2017.
Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two "free speech booths" were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.San Francisco International Airport,, Retrieved August 17, 2009
WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. "The [National Lawyers] Guild, which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged".Boghosian, Heidi. The Assault on Free Speech, Public Assembly, and Dissent – A National Lawyers Guild Report on Government Violations of First Amendment Rights in the United States. The National Lawyer's Guild, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006 In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that "It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits ... But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights."O'Hagan, Maureen. WTO no-protest zone upheld; But demonstrators can pursue lawsuits. The Seattle Times, June 3, 2005. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis on January 1, 2007
When then-President George W Bush came to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Labor Day, 2002, for a speech, the local police, acting on the request of the Secret Service, erected chain-link fence on a baseball field a third of a mile from the speech site, and proclaimed it a "designated free-speech zone."
Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray".Goodman, Amy, and Thomas Falcon. ACLU & NLG Groups Sue Over DNC "Free Speech Zone" aka Boston's Camp X-Ray . Democracy Now!, July 26, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006. "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."Delatte, Gabe. Free Speech Behind the Razor Wire. Wired Magazine, July 27, 2004. Retrieved December 20, 2006. A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".The 2005 Jefferson Muzzles. The Thomas Jefferson Center. However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.Judge Denies DNC Free-Speech Zone Challenge . WCVB-TV Boston, July 22, 2004. Retrieved February 15, 2007.
Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places – building vestibules, parking garages, or vans – and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO not CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained – some for nearly two days."McGuire, Mike. Policing Dissent . Nonviolent Activist magazine. January 2006. Retrieved on December 19, 2006. Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".
Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.Hightower, Jim. "Bush Zones Go National". The Nation, July 29, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006. Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.Bovard, James. "Quarantining dissent – How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech", San Francisco Chronicle, January 4, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006.Bovard, James. "Free-Speech Zone" – The administration quarantines dissent The American Conservative, December 15, 2003. Retrieved on December 20, 2006. A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.Refuseandresist.org § 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and others. Cornell University law school
Criticisms
Civil liberties advocates argue that free speech zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit . ACLU press release, September 23, 2003 There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas – the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone. The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."Cline, Austin. "Free Speech" Zones . About.com, December 24, 2003. Retrieved on December 20, 2006
The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas. According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.
The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. "The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July."Klein, Rick. Convention plan puts protesters blocks away. The Boston Globe, February 20, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006.
In general, critics have viewed the uneven affects designated areas of protest have on the participation and message of demonstrations. Research suggests that, under the guise of safety, they shape how the protests are viewed and participated in. Separation spatially has influenced the ability for these protests to pass their message onto a wide audience. The extent to which the message reaches an audience fluctuates based on the enforcement and context of these restrictions and placements. Additionally, research on potential psychological and social effects of these practices has been done. Some studies have shown that this decreased visibility has an affect on a participant's perceived efficacy. Their willingness to be involved may decrease as their ability to exercise the First Amendment right may become less certain (Chamlee-Wright 2018).
Notable incidents and court proceedings