Among the many arguments
and debates about what the First Amendment protects, one would never think the
Supreme Court’s Plaza would come up in conversation. I find it quite surprising
that the very court that is meant to uphold the First Amendment would infringe
so heavily on it. The issue of whether or not protest are allowed within in the
grounds of the Court’s plaza has been a very controversial one since 1949. Apparently
the Supreme Court’s devotion to the First Amendment has its limits. It stops at
the edge of the grand marble plaza outside its own courthouse. (NY Times)
On a snowy morning on
January 24, 2011, Harold Hodge Jr. walked to the plaza in front of the U.S.
Supreme Court building with a sign around his neck. The 3' x 2' placard read:
"The U.S. Gov. allows police to illegally murder and brutalize
African-Americans and Hispanic people." Hodge, a 45-year-old
African-American, stood silently at attention in front of the building
displaying his message. There weren't many walking through the plaza and he
wasn't blocking anyone's way. However, after a few minutes, Hodge was
approached by a police officer for the Supreme Court. The officer informed
Hodge that he was violating a law prohibiting expressive activity in and around
the Supreme Court building and asked him to leave.
According to a federal
law, enacted in 1949, "It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in
processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to
display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or
adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."
The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 60
days in jail. The Supreme Court addressed the law in 1983, in United States v.
Grace, ruling that it could not be applied to demonstrations on the public
sidewalks around the court. Since then, the sidewalks, which are broad and set
off by stairs from the plaza, have been regularly used for protests of all
kinds.
I will remind you that in
2011, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told the father of a fallen soldier he
had to endure a hateful protest while he tried to lay his son to rest. The
First Amendment, the chief justice said, protects “even hurtful speech on
public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” In June, Chief
Justice Roberts told women seeking abortions essentially the same thing in a
decision striking down buffer zones around clinics in Massachusetts. “Vital
First Amendment interests,” he said, required women to hear from opponents of
abortion in the fraught moments before they entered those clinics. It just
doesn’t make sense that they have to take disrespect but the court won’t accept
a small protest on its plaza.
It is simply amazing that
with all the things the Supreme Court says people must endure when it comes to
freedom of speech they cannot handle a single protestor on their front lawn. You
would think that the Plaza of the Supreme Court would be the best place to hold
public debates versus military funerals or the sidewalks outside an abortion
clinic. Some people think the reasoning behind this law is to keep the public
from influencing the members of the Court. However, I find it very unlikely
that Judges of the Court would be so easily influenced by a single message. Furthermore
there have been several occasions where attorneys and their parties have
addressed the media on the plaza and the Court allows permits for commercial
and professional filming. As always it comes down to the usual divide of who
has money and who does not.
In Justice Thurgood
Marshall’s dissent in the 1983 case he made a valid point when he said
“Visitors to this Court, do not lose their First Amendment rights at the edge
of the sidewalks. It would be ironic indeed, if an exception
to the Constitution were to be recognized for the very institution that has the
chief responsibility for protecting constitutional rights.” This quote sums up
my whole problem with the court punishing people for acting on the rights that
the Court should be protecting. Instead they are putting up a barrier to shield
themselves from those actions by threatening jail time. (OTB)
I could not agree with you more Amanda. The one place where people should feel nothing but total freedom to express themselves is the one place they are not allowed to makes no sense at all to me. It is completely ridiculous that this would even be action by The Court. They job is to ensure our freedoms, yet they are the ones taking it away in this case. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it shows the divide between people who have money and people who do not. I think it is pretty fascinating seeing how differently people can be treated based off their social class. It is almost like people with more money are seen as more human than people without. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this man who had something to say, and said it in a peaceful manner, not bothering anyone at all. I also agree with you when you pointed out the fact that the justices would most likely not be easily be influenced by a sign from one person. There is no doubt in my mind that the conversations that go on in their courtroom is a lot more intense than a single man standing on their lawn with a sign. Honestly, I almost feel like it comes down to The Court feeling as if they are untouchable and above everyone else.
ReplyDelete