Censorship and the city

Someone on the St. Petersburg City Council should get a copy of the First Amendment and read it. They obviously haven't glanced at it in a long time. How else to explain the censorious suggestions that keep percolating among council members and city staff?

In March, the council considered penalizing bands and promoters for their use of profanities during concerts in public parks. Earlier this month, at least one council member implied that Clear Channel Broadcasting might lose city business if it didn't clean up The Monsters, a locally broadcast morning show known for its hosts' use of racially offensive terms.

Now, the constitutional outrage du jour is a proposal to bar protesters from two key city sidewalks during popular hours.

Council members don't seem to understand that they don't have the authority to wall off challenging and uncomfortable ideas and words in their city. Our right to freedom of expression means that people sometimes will be offended. It also means that businesses and pedestrians sometimes will be inconvenienced by others who use the public sidewalks to promote a political message. This is the price we pay for living in a free society.

The proposal to be considered by the council at a workshop Aug. 2 would bar protests on a sidewalk near BayWalk and one near Tropicana Field during times when those areas are most crowded. Until recently, the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement regularly protested on the BayWalk sidewalk. The group disbanded the action after BayWalk management agreed to make changes to its code of conduct, illustrating how this kind of political action can be effective. Today, antiwar protesters congregate on BayWalk sidewalks.

Protesting is one of the only ways for people with few means to express their political ideas or grievances. Average folks may not be able to hire a lobbyist or run an ad on television, but they can walk in a high-trafficked area with a placard stating their message. Such simple acts of expression are precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Beyond ensuring that protesters are not blocking entrances or preventing pedestrians from moving about, the city should have no say. Pedestrians and protesters have been sharing sidewalks for hundreds of years.

The city's legal staff seems to think the ban will pass constitutional muster because alternative sidewalks are available, but that is a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment guarantee that all public spaces where the public is generally welcome are also free-speech friendly.

We are lucky to have a Bill of Rights that prevents local politicians from carving up cities into no-protest zones in response to complaints. If the council pursues this wrongheaded proposal, it will be up to the courts to set things right.

[Last modified July 23, 2004, 01:02:22]