As reported in the New York Times, a federal judge ruled yesterday that the city will have to defend itself in a trial to determine whether it acted unconstitutionally when it banned protests on Central Park's Great Lawn, during the 2004 Republican National Convention.

The city, as you'll recall, argued that it was merely trying to protect the grass. Protesters pointed out that the city was pretty selective in identifying threats to the turf:

They claimed that the New York Philharmonic and the Metropolitan Opera as well as corporate gatherings had been permitted in the park at other times. They contend that the city is curtailing political protest that was once accepted on the Great Lawn.

The judge, William H. Pauley III of United States District Court in Manhattan, denied the city’s request for a decision before trial on whether it had violated the groups’ rights.

“There is evidence tending to show that rallies are categorically disfavored” by city officials, which could be a constitutional violation, he wrote. He said a trial was necessary to determine if the city had violated the rights of the National Council of Arab Americans, a civil rights group, and the Answer Coalition, a collection of groups with antiwar and other causes.

I'm not the biggest fan of Answer, but Mayor Bloomberg, having worked so hard to get the RNC to New York, made it quite clear where he stood. Let's not forget his comparison of protesters to terrorists:

"It is true that a handful of people have tried to destroy our city by going up and yelling at visitors here because they don't agree with their views," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Think about what that says. This is America, New York, cradle of liberty, the city for free speech if there ever was one and some people think that we shouldn't allow people to express themselves. That's exactly what the terrorists did, if you think about it, on 9/11. Now this is not the same kind of terrorism but there's no question that these anarchists are afraid to let people speak out."

Granted, the mayor was referring specifically to demonstrators shouting at RNC delegates. But it was irresponsible of him to compare nonviolent protesters to terrorists, and it demonstrated a contempt for the anti-RNC demonstrators in general.

Judge Pauley's ruling was a victory for free speech and common sense. The city has some 'splainin' to do.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |