Demonstration Regulation by Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <6/4> Abortion demonstrations got out of hand. Something had to be done. We now have specific laws governing abortion protests. It was done in a good cause. Of course there was harassment. There were bombings. There were even two murders. That would certainly appear to justify the special laws. Unless we consider it has been rather tame compared to unions while on strike. Not much different from the Vietnam or civil rights protests either. Even though demonstrations are protected by the 1st amendment as a matter of free speech it is reasonable to have some minimal regulation simply to assure peace and orderliness. For example, if people wish to speak in public parks it is reasonable to ban loudspeakers. It is not reasonable to ban loudspeakers only for particular subjects. That we call censorship. With demonstrations it is reasonable to provide regulations that assure public access is not blocked save upon a specific permit being granted such as to hold a parade or to for such a large crowd in a park as to deny access to normal public use. What is not reasonable is to apply unique requirements to demonstrations based solely upon what is being protested. Thus there is a large number of people, perhaps a majority, who are in favor these unconstitutional laws because they are in a good cause. I have written many times of the loss of rights in a good cause. Here is a clear and present good cause and loss of rights. Which side do you fall on? Rather I ask which good cause will approve of next time to limit our right of free speech? If these laws pass Constitutional muster or even if they are simply allowed to stand then we have taken another step toward the end of the right of free speech. These steps have been coming slowly after decades of establishing it completely. It was effectively won against censorship of pornography when the omnipotent "for the children" argument was raised and there are dozens of draconian state and federal laws prohibiting it. Regulating, vice prohibiting, all pornography has been argued and that form of regulation lost. Now we have accepted strict censorship by type rather than by nature. These are two steps to clear and offensive censorship, limitations upon the freedom of speech by subject matter. The more often it is accept the easier it is to accept the next. Watch for more to come. * * * * * Further distribution is encouraged by the author.