Speech and the Politics of Presence

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Tim Zick says:

    I may have more to say about the judicial treatment of the speech restrictions in Denver during my upcoming visit. For those interested in issues relating to public speech, protest, and repression, my book, Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places (Cambridge University Press), will be out this fall. I devote a chapter to the “militarization” of public places during critical democratic moments. I have also addressed these issues in several articles — Speech and Spatial Tactics, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 581 (2006); Space, Place, and Speech: The Expressive Topography, 74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 439 (2006); Property, Place, and Public Discourse, 21 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 173(2006); and Clouds, Cameras, and Computers: The First Amendment and and Networked Public Places, 59 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2007).

  2. Tim Zick says:

    I may have more to add regarding the restrictions placed on protesters in Denver during my upcoming visit. For those interested in issues relating to public expression, protest, and repression my book, Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places (Cambridge University Press), will be published this fall. I devote a chapter in the book to the “militarization” of public places during critical democratic moments. I have also written about these issues in several articles: Speech and Spatial Tactics, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 581 (2006); Space, Place, and Speech: The Expressive Topography, 74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 439 (2006); Property, Place, and Public Discourse, 21 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 173 (2006); and Clouds, Cameras, and Computers: The First Amendment and Networked Public Places, 59 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2007).

  3. Frank says:

    There is an interesting circuit split now between the 6th and the 8th circuits on whether Fred Phelps’s viciously anti-gay/anti-America protests should have the right to get close to military funerals.

  4. Patrick S. O'Donnell says:

    “No doubt, public dissent can become public disorder, creating risks for injuries and property as Seattle in 1999 demonstrated.”

    Yet recall the estimate of demonstrators in Seattle: 50,000-100,000 people, and the fact that, as Anup Shah notes at his website Global Issues (see http://www.globalissues.org/article/46/wto-protests-in-seattle-1999), the vast majority were nonviolent protesters, with a rather small group initiating the violence and looting that prompted “the Seattle police and National Guard declaring a state of emergency (it was even termed as Martial Law by the Mayor of Seattle at one point). This led to the issuing of curfews, arresting, tear-gassing, pepper spraying and even shooting rubber bullets at innocent, non-violent protestors. This became the mainstream media’s major coverage focus often portraying all the protestors as ‘loony leftists’ or violent groups with no clue as to what they are talking about.” Media characterizations of the protesters’ views were frequently distorted as well: “Most people were pro-democracy activists protesting at the dangerous unfairness at the current model of free trade, while agreed that international trade is beneficial to everyone, if it is fair.” One can do a search at the FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) website for analysis and examples of this distortion.