‘Occupy’ protests, tea party rallies: assembly, petition in action
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement and its rapidly spreading urban echoes are — like the tea party movement — grand examples of Americans using at least two of our lesser-known First Amendment freedoms: assembly and petition.
Regardless of how you feel about either or both movements, they are the latest examples of the role of protest in American politics and society. In the history of protest, there are both lessons to be learned and mistakes to be avoided.
As a nation, we too often forget that along with apple pie, protest is a uniquely American tradition. We also need to recall that too often we have trampled on that tradition in the name of order or safety or security.
Americans have taken to the streets to object to all manner of issues, from taxes on whiskey to the proposed Constitution itself. Abolitionists marched against slavery. Activists pressed for child-labor laws and industrial safety. Thousands protested to gain the vote for women a century ago, and thousands more demonstrated for civil rights in the 1950s and ‘60s and against the Vietnam War in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
But even as today’s demonstrators camp outside government and financial offices in a number of cities, recycling ‘60s protest music, we hear reverberations of the pro-Vietnam War advocates who proclaimed, “America: Love It or Leave It.”
If the “occupy” movement continues to spread, and mass arrests occur, we should recall another time when public protest rooted in deep economic woe and joblessness led to a shameful stain on the First Amendment rights of assembly and petition.
In the spring and summer of 1932, a ragtag assembly of about 15,000 World War I veterans, many accompanied by their families, converged on Washington, D.C., to petition Congress for financial help in the Great Depression toward the end of President Herbert Hoover’s term. Seeking early payout of a special payment not due to be made till 1945, these veterans occupied public land and empty buildings along Pennsylvania Avenue and in a neighborhood across the Anacostia River from the Capitol.
Calling themselves the “Bonus Expeditionary Army” — a play on the name for U.S. military forces that had fought in Europe — they were ordered to disperse after Congress rejected their plea for early payment. When they did not, U.S. Army troops, led by future national heroes Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton, and backed by a handful of surplus Army tanks, moved against the veterans.
Scores of veterans were injured and several died after clashes with troops. Their makeshift encampments were destroyed and burned.
Within a few years, claims that the veterans were anarchists or communists bent on destroying the nation were set aside — and a second “bonus army” was greeted by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1936, Congress agreed to the early payout to needy vets.
Thankfully, confrontations thus far in the “occupy” movement haven’t involved tanks or troops – more like a limited deployment of pepper spray and plastic handcuffs. For the most part the arrests of hundreds, not thousands, in New York, Boston and Washington have occurred because protesters broke laws.
Let’s hope everyone keeps in mind the unspoken but eminently valuable safety valve provided by the First Amendment — the right to voice criticisms of those in power, and to assemble peaceably with like-minded people to petition for “a redress of grievances.”
Even those who see themselves as disenfranchised — as some “tea partiers” and “occupiers” both have claimed — find that their voices are not stilled, their protests not muffled by representatives of the most powerful government on Earth.
Deep-seated public anger over economic disparity or a government seen as out of control is finding a public voice. Tempers are not being further frayed by the frustration of sweeping suppression.
The First Amendment is working — for now.
Tags: demonstration, Occupy, protest, tea party
8 Responses to “‘Occupy’ protests, tea party rallies: assembly, petition in action”
Let Us Know What You Think
Note: We cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer/First Amendment Center. Previously, Paulson served as editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today and USATODAY.com.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Hudson writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications devoted to First Amendment issues.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
Well said. Very well said.
Nice history lesson, thank you. I am confused about the right to assemble and protest. For example, the protestors are protesting on public lands, but laws are being used in order to disperse them, such as vagrancy or park hours. If the stated intention is peaceful protest, and the actions of nearly all are within the definition of peaceful, then the law about vagrancy or park hours is directly interfering with the right to assembly and protest, and thus becomes unconstitutional within that context of the situation, does it not, because it is being used to break up the demonstration.
PS. In the case of park hours, the intent of the law is public safety, right? So it would be a misuse of the intent of the law to use it to disperse or disrupt a peaceful assembly.
It might be. Again, other factors may be involved, depending on the locality and the type of park. Zuccotti Park, where the Wall Street protests are taking place, is privately owned — yet by law is to remain open 24 hours a day, according to The New York Times, owing to the zoning laws under which it was created. Other parks elsewhere are usually different.
When a protest involves occupying public space, several public interests often come into play and must be balanced. These include the First Amendment right to peaceable assembly, public health/sanitation, public safety, the ability of non-protesters to use the space, etc. There is a legal tradition in First Amendment law involving the “time, place and manner” of a protest. A loud march, say, at 3 a.m. through a residential neighborhood would probably violate a noise ordinance. Local laws vary and may or may not be constitutional. This balancing act of several factors is playing out now as we watch these protests.
One last note: the ordinances themselves are not unconstitutional as long as they are content-neutral in writing and in application. If you say “Everyone must leave after dark so we can clean up all the litter,” then it’s fair game. But even if you say “Large public gatherings may not be held after dark, but individual use is not restricted” then that’s not content-neutral enough.
[...] Here’s a civics lesson on which to chew: Does the First Amendment guarantee the Occupy Wall Street protestors the right to [...]
[...] I’m wrong, but the movement also highlights a serious conflict between our First Amendment rights of assembly and petition, and contemporary laws and notions regarding public space. As Kimmelman notes, public spaces in [...]