Lawmakers have a real problem on their hands. Ever since the squatter currently occupying the White House came along, protests have been popping up all over the place.
And so they’ve felt compelled to pass all kinds of laws to make it clear that protesting—or at least protesting about certain things—is frowned upon. They shuffle off the protesters to some out-of-sight, out-of-mind place, roped in or otherwise cordoned off, for the safety of all concerned.
I’ve not seen pro-life protests inspire such action. It’s protests against things like dirty oil pipelines and the brutalities of agribusiness that make lawmakers feel threatened. If someone organized a protest in support of dirty oil pipelines or the brutalities of agribusiness, that would probably be fine and dandy.
But there’s that pesky little thing called the First Amendment that stands in the way of our lawmakers dealing effectively with this problem. They have to be creative.
I’m sure eventually some lawmakers somewhere will acquire an old abandoned barn way out in the cornfields and designate it as the official local protest zone. It will be called the First Amendment barn. Because it’s way out in the cornfields, it balances the interests of those who want to resist with those who don’t wish to be disturbed or inconvenienced by the unpleasantness of it all.
Inside the First Amendment barn, there will be an old soapbox and one of those orange, rubber highway construction cones that can be used as a megaphone. So if any citizen feels a burning urge to protest, all they’ll have to do is apply for a permit to assemble in the First Amendment barn and wait 180 business days for the permit to be issued. Then they’ll be in business.
Of course, this won’t sit well with all the First Amendment nerds, like the ACLU. They’ll say that where people protest is as important as when and how and why. The point of protest, they’ll say, is to disrupt things by stepping out of your designated place and inserting yourself where you’re not supposed to be.
But the First Amendment merely says Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” It doesn’t say we have a right for anybody to actually hear that speech or to expect our speaking to do any good. For that we’re on our own.
Conservative judges will say that as long as the lawmakers aren’t violating our freedom of “speech” as interpreted in the narrow, nakedly literal terms intended by our Founding Fathers, they’re good to go.
And if the First Amendment barn works out well, maybe the lawmakers will acquire and designate other barns to cover other Amendments. Maybe there will also be a 2nd Amendment barn. It also will be way out in the cornfields and if citizens feel a burning desire to carry and flash guns around, that can be the one and`only place where they’re free to do so.
But I know no lawmakers would ever go for that.