Editing Free speech zone (section)

==History==
During the [[1988 Democratic National Convention]], the city of [[Atlanta]] set up a "designated protest zone"<ref>Warren, Susan. "Protests cause Young to boost police presence", ''[[Houston Chronicle]]'', July 19, 1988. Retrieved from [https://archive.today/20120731093913/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1988_557662/democratic-national-convention-protests-cause-youn.html archive.is] on April 24, 2017.</ref> so the convention would not be disrupted. A [[pro-choice]] demonstrator opposing an [[History of Operation Rescue|Operation Rescue]] group said Atlanta Mayor [[Andrew Young]] "put us in a free-speech cage."<ref>Blake, Andrew. "Atlanta's Steamy Heat Cools Protests; More Than 25 Groups Rally in Demonstration Area", ''[[Boston Globe]]'', July 20, 1988. Retrieved from [http://www.proquest.com Proquest] on April 24, 2017.</ref> "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 [[United States presidential nominating convention]]s.<ref>Riccardi, Nicholas. "[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-23-mn-44048-story.html Convention planners wary of a new style of protest]". ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', June 23, 2000. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref>

Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two "free speech booths" were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.<ref>San Francisco International Airport,{{cite web |url=http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/sao/info/permits/index.html |title=SFO - San Francisco International Airport - film, free speech & reflection room permits |access-date=August 17, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091102091840/http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/sao/info/permits/index.html |archive-date=November 2, 2009  }}, Retrieved August 17, 2009</ref>

[[Image:WTO protests.jpg|right|thumbnail|Police on Union Street in Seattle during the [[WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity|1999 WTO conference]]. The WTO protests catalyzed a number of changes in the way law enforcement deals with protesters.<ref name=Boghosian/>]]

[[WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity]] saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. "The [[National Lawyers Guild|[National Lawyers] Guild]], which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 [[World Trade Organization]] meeting in [[Seattle]]. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged".<ref name=Boghosian>Boghosian, Heidi. [http://www.nlg.org/resources/DissentBookWeb.pdf The Assault on Free Speech, Public Assembly, and Dissent] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060820210415/http://www.nlg.org/resources/DissentBookWeb.pdf |date=August 20, 2006 }} – A [[National Lawyers Guild]] Report on Government Violations of First Amendment Rights in the United States. The National Lawyer's Guild, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006</ref> In a subsequent lawsuit, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] found that "It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits ... But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights."<ref>O'Hagan, Maureen. WTO no-protest zone upheld; But demonstrators can pursue lawsuits. The [[Seattle Times]], June 3, 2005. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis on January 1, 2007</ref>

When then-President [[George W Bush]] came to [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]], on Labor Day, 2002, for a speech, the local police, acting on the request of the [[US Secret Service|Secret Service]], erected [[chain-link fence]] on a baseball field a third of a mile from the speech site, and proclaimed it a "designated free-speech zone."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones" |url=http://www.aclu.org/documents/free-speech-under-fire-aclu-challenge-protest-zones |access-date=2023-10-13 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bovard |first1=James |title=Free-Speech Zone |url=https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/free-speech-zone/ |website=The American Conservative |access-date=August 6, 2020 |date=December 15, 2003}}</ref>

Free speech zones were used in Boston at the [[2004 Democratic National Convention]]. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the [[FleetCenter (Boston)|FleetCenter]] where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's [[Camp X-Ray]]".<ref name="democracynow.org">Goodman, Amy, and Thomas Falcon. [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/26/145248 ACLU & NLG Groups Sue Over DNC "Free Speech Zone" aka Boston's Camp X-Ray] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060727032821/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F07%2F26%2F145248 |date=July 27, 2006 }}. ''[[Democracy Now!]]'', July 26, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006.</ref> "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."<ref>Delatte, Gabe. [https://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64349,00.html?tw=wn_story_related Free Speech Behind the Razor Wire]. ''[[Wired Magazine]]'', July 27, 2004. Retrieved December 20, 2006.</ref> A coalition of groups protesting the [[Iraq War]] challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge [[Douglas Preston Woodlock|Douglas Woodlock]] was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".<ref name="Muzzle">[https://web.archive.org/web/20070104191414/http://www.tjcenter.org/past2005.html The 2005 Jefferson Muzzles]. The Thomas Jefferson Center.</ref> However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.<ref>[http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3564822/detail.html Judge Denies DNC Free-Speech Zone Challenge] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070515093009/http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3564822/detail.html |date=May 15, 2007 }}. WCVB-TV Boston, July 22, 2004. Retrieved February 15, 2007.</ref>

Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the [[2004 Republican National Convention]]. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine ''Nonviolent Activist'', "The policing of [[2004 Republican National Convention protest activity|the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention]] represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The [[New York City Police Department|NYPD]] tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places&nbsp;– building vestibules, parking garages, or vans&nbsp;– and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE&nbsp;– DO ''not'' CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained – some for nearly two days."<ref>McGuire, Mike. [http://www.warresisters.org/nva0106-4.htm  Policing Dissent] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070119122053/http://www.warresisters.org/nva0106-4.htm |date=January 19, 2007 }}. ''[[Nonviolent Activist]]'' magazine. January 2006. Retrieved on December 19, 2006.</ref> Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the [[Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression]], "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".<ref name="Muzzle"/>

[[Image:Washington University Public Zones2.jpg|right|thumbnail|[[Falun Gong]] protesters inside a fenced-off free speech zone at the [[United States presidential election debates|2000 Presidential Debate]] at [[Washington University in St. Louis]]]]

Free speech zones were commonly used by President [[George W. Bush]] after the [[September 11 attacks]] and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the [[United States Secret Service|Secret Service]], who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.<ref name="bushzones">Hightower, Jim. [http://www.thenation.com/article/bush-zones-go-national "Bush Zones Go National"]. ''[[The Nation]]'', July 29, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006.</ref><ref name="freedomunderfire"/> Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with [[trespass]]ing, [[disorderly conduct]] and/or [[resisting arrest]].<ref name="sfgate">Bovard, James. [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL "Quarantining dissent – How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech"], ''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'', January 4, 2004. Retrieved on December 20, 2006.</ref><ref name="amconmag">Bovard, James. [http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html "Free-Speech Zone" – The administration quarantines dissent] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040806155844/http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html |date=August 6, 2004 }} ''[[The American Conservative]]'', December 15, 2003. Retrieved on December 20, 2006.</ref> A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.<ref>[http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=747 Refuseandresist.org] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070103030642/http://refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=747 |date=January 3, 2007 }}</ref><ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752- § 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and others]. [[Cornell University]] law school</ref>