The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations. — George Washington, letter to Thomas Nelson August 20, 1778

Criminalizing Free Speech: The New Look of Democracy

March 7, 2012   ·   By   ·   5 Comments

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”—First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

One of the key ingredients in a democracy is the right to freely speak our minds to those who represent us. In fact, it is one of the few effective tools we have left to combat government corruption and demand accountability. But now, even that right is being chipped away by statutes and court rulings which weaken our ability to speak freely. Activities which were once considered a major component of democratic life in America are now being criminalized. Making matters worse, politicians have gone to great lengths in recent years to evade their contractual, constitutional duty to make themselves available to us and hear our grievances. That is what representative government is all about.

Unfortunately, with gas prices rising, the economy tanking, the increasingly unpopular war effort dragging on and public approval of Congress at an all-time low, members of Congress have been working hard to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance—avoiding town-hall meetings, making minimal public appearances while at home in their districts, only appearing at events in controlled settings where they’re the only ones talking, and if they must interact with constituents, doing so via telephone town meetings or impromptu visits to local businesses where the chances of being accosted by angry voters are greatly minimized. Consider that in the summer of 2011, 60 percent of Congress refused to hold town hall meetings with their constituents during their summer break. The ones who did often charged a fee for attendance. For example, Rep. Paul Ryan charged fifteen dollars per person for his public appearance, and Rep. Dan Quayle charged 35 dollars per person.

Now, in a self-serving move aimed more at insulating government officials from discontent voters than protecting their hides, Congress has overwhelmingly approved legislation that will keep the public not just at arms’ length distance but a football field away by making it a federal crime to protest or assemble in the vicinity of protected government officials. The Trespass Bill (the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) creates a roving “bubble” zone or perimeter around select government officials and dignitaries (anyone protected by the Secret Service), as well as any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) was one of only three members of the House of Representatives to vote against the legislation. As he explains:

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity—even if that activity is annoying to those government officials—violates our rights. I voted “no.” It passed 388-3.

Specifically, the bill, which now awaits President Obama’s signature, levies a fine and up to a year in prison against anyone found in violation, and if the person violating the statute is carrying a “dangerous weapon,” the prison sentence is bumped up to no more than ten years. Thus, a person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting “disorderly.” Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as “dangerous”), he could face up to ten years in prison.

Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone whom the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits. The Secret Service is also in charge of securing National Special Security Events, which include events such as the G8 and NATO summits, the National Conventions of both major parties, and even the Super Bowl. Simply walking by one of these events places one in a zone of criminal trespass and thus makes him subject to arrest.

While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions (it was one of many knee-jerk pieces of legislation introduced by members of Congress in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in January 2011), it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. Moreover, short of government officials patting down or body scanning every individual within proximity of a government official, this law is practically unenforceable. It’s doubtful this will even do much to deter determined psychopaths, who have a way of getting past the most determined barriers. What it will do, however, is keep law enforcement officials occupied with people who pose no threats whatsoever and distracted from the real threats.

It’s safe to say that what happened to Steven Howards will, under this law, become a common occurrence. Howards was at a Colorado shopping mall with his son in June 2006 when he learned that then-Vice President Dick Cheney and his Secret Service security detail were at the mall greeting the public. A Secret Service agent overheard Howards telling someone that he was going to approach Cheney, express his opposition to the war in Iraq, and ask him “how many kids he’s killed today.” Howards eventually approached Cheney and shared his view that Cheney’s policies in Iraq “are disgusting.” When Cheney turned and began to walk away, Howards brushed the Vice President’s shoulder with his hand. The Secret Service subsequently arrested and jailed Howards, charging him with assaulting the Vice President. The assault charges were later dropped. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to hear Howards’ case on whether or not his right to free speech was extinguished.

The United States has historically stood for unfettered free speech, which is vital to a functioning democracy. Unfortunately, the tendency on the part of government and law enforcement officials to purge dissent has largely undermined the First Amendment’s safeguards for political free speech. The authoritarian mindset undergirding these roving bubble zones is no different from that which gave rise to “free speech zones,” which are government-sanctioned areas located far away from government officials, into which activists and citizens are herded at political rallies and events. Both zones, however, have the same end result: dissent is muted or silenced altogether, and the centers of power are shielded from the citizen.

Free speech zones have become commonplace at political rallies and the national conventions of both major political parties. One of the most infamous free speech zones was erected at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not so much a zone of free expression as a cage, it was a space enclosed by chain link fences, Jersey walls, and razor wire. Judge Douglas Woodlock, who toured the free speech cage before the convention, noted, “One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.”

Bubble zones and free speech zones, in essence, destroy the very purpose of the First Amendment, which assures us of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. In other words, we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to address our government officials in a public manner so that they can hear our grievances or concerns. What these zones do, however, is create insulated barriers around public officials, thus keeping us out of sight and sound’s reach of those who are supposed to represent us. Many prominent activists, from Occupiers, to the Tea Party, from anti-war protestors and so on, will be shut out from the view of public officials under this legislation. These zones also serve a secondary purpose, which is to chill free speech by intimidating citizens into remaining silent.

Consider this: if these types of laws had been in effect during the Civil Rights movement, there would have been no March on Washington. Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow activists would have been rendered criminals. And King’s call for “militant nonviolent resistance” would have been silenced by police in riot gear.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is available in bookstores and online. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at
John W. Whitehead
View all articles by John W. Whitehead
John W.s website
Print Friendly

If you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a comment below (subject to the comment guidelines listed at the bottom of the article), sharing it to Facebook or Twitter or another social media site, subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader, or have a daily digest of the latest American Clarion articles delivered to your email inbox each morning..

  • retiredday

    When I was a kid, “It’s a free country!” was one of the most over-used tag lines that anyone heard anywhere.  I don’t hear it much these days.  The fact is, if you think we’re still a free country, you aren’t awake yet.  Like this new Trespass Bill, the government just takes away our constitutional freedoms whenever it’s convenient.  Not only is the President a dictator, and four fifths of the Supreme Court have no respect for the Constitution or Natural Law that led to its creation, the Congress has more concern for maintaining their own power than to actually represent the will of the people.  3 votes against the bill in the House?  What happened to those Tea Party candidates?  Are they being sucked in by the black hole of Big Government? 

    • thisoldspouse

       To be fair, I think a number of these “for” votes had in mind the mindless menace of OWS anarchists.  Of course, there are dozens of other ways to deal with these malevolent parasites (like actually enforcing existing laws) without ruining it for the rest of us, but I think going to Washington imparts a big dose of laziness in a lot of formerly conservative hopefuls.

  • Pingback: Free Speech/Protesting Is Now A Felony Punishable By Jail « This Day - One Day

  • Pingback: Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up? – John Malcolm

  • Pingback: POLICE STATE USA: New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness – Stop Playing Church!

Featured Articles


South Dakota ACT Scores Above National Average


South Dakota’s average composite ACT score remains unchanged from last year at 21.8, where it has been for the past three years. The national average was also unchanged from a year ago, sitting at 21.1 as it has for four of the past five years. While South Dakota’s scores are consistently higher than the national average by several tenths of a point, South Dakota Secretary of Education Dr. Melody Schopp says there is always room for improvement.

question mark

Our National Question Mark

Jim Bowman

As we are quickly approaching America’s political cliff, we must look back to what caused this absurd presidential quandary. Nameless grunts in and out of government have combined to rubber stamp a candidate who to this day remains a question mark. I know the question seems ridiculous, but just who is Obama?

Delta Force bodyguards flank General Norman Schwarzkopf as he visits US forces that took part in Operation Desert Storm, 1991

I Knew God Was With Us

William J. Federer

Born AUGUST 22, 1934, he served in Vietnam, commanded the U.S. forces in Grenada and Desert Storm, was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal and knighted by the Queen of England. This was four-star General "Stormin Norman" Schwarzkopf.

Westboro Baptist Church protesters and Patriot Guard Riders, 2008 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Westboro: The Famous Church of Hate

Carrie K. Hutchens

Westboro's, the famous church of hate, seemed to be slowing down, but it appears they have merely been changing tactics or adding to them. They've moved on from protesting at funerals for servicemen or women, and have now set their sights on GaymerCon, a homosexual gamer's convention. Whether you believe homosexual behavior is right or wrong, is the Westboro "Baptist" Church's venomous tactic the right way to approach this issue?

South Dakota

2012 South Dakota Freedom Index Released

Bob Ellis

The South Dakota Freedom Coalition has released the 2012 South Dakota Freedom Index. This annual scorecard is an attempt to provide the people of South Dakota a useful and educational snapshot of how their state legislators voted and to apply some basic prniciples of good government in evaluating their performance in Pierre. Issues examined include concealed carry permits, state-level ObamaCare, illegal immigration, abortion and wealth redistribution.


Other News

Other Commentary

Featured Blogs

Like American Clarion

Authors (with latest article)

  • Bureaucratic Red Tape Strangles Jobs

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964

Switch to our mobile site

NewMedia blog