Editing Free speech zone (section)

==Notable incidents and court proceedings==
In 1939, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] found in ''[[Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization]]'' that public streets and parks "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." In the later ''[[Thornhill v. Alabama]]'' case, the court found that [[Picketing (protest)|picketing]] and marching in public areas is protected by the [[United States Constitution]] as free speech. However, subsequent rulings – ''[[Edwards v. South Carolina]]'', ''[[Brown v. Louisiana]]'', ''[[Cox v. Louisiana]]'', and ''[[Adderley v. Florida]]'' – found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical [[externalities]] it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration.

The Secret Service denied targeting the president's political opponents.  "Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations", said one Secret Service spokesman.<ref>Cowan, Lee. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/silencing-voices-of-dissent/ "Silencing Voices Of Dissent"]. ''[[CBS]]'' news, December 4, 2003. Retrieved January 23, 2006.</ref>

===Bill Neel===
"These [free speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.  When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on [[Labor Day]] 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.'  The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a [[baseball field]] surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.  The police cleared the path of the [[motorcade]] of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path.  Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct.  Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"<ref name="amconmag"/><ref>[http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/neel-2002-10-31.html ''Pennsylvania v. Neel''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211183830/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/neel-2002-10-31.html |date=December 11, 2006 }} transcript. WarLaw archive.</ref> District judge Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"<ref name="bushzones"/>

===Brett Bursey===
At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away.  He was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police.  "Bursey said that he asked the policeman if 'it was the content of my sign,' and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.'"<ref name="amconmag"/>  However, the prosecution, led by [[James Strom Thurmond Jr.]], disputes Bursey's version of events.<ref>Thurmond, J. Strom, Jr. [http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-thurmond-20040113.html As Court Ruled, Bursey’s Free Speech Not Trampled] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070216032016/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-thurmond-20040113.html |date=February 16, 2007 }}.  [[The State (newspaper)|''The State'']], Guest columnist, January 13, 2004.  Retrieved from the WarLaw archive on January 2, 2006.</ref>  Trespassing charges against Bursey were dropped, and Bursey was instead indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president.<ref name="amconmag"/>  Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a [[US dollar|US$]]5,000 fine.<ref name="amconmag"/>  After a [[bench trial]], Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.<ref name="Bursey">[http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d87.html ''United States v. Bursey'' Transcript of Verdict Hearing] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120709182409/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d87.html |date=July 9, 2012 }}. WarLaw archive.</ref>  In his ruling, Marchant found that "this is not to say that the Secret Service's power to restrict the area around the President is absolute, nor does the Court find that protesters are required to go to a designated demonstration area&nbsp;– which was an issue in this case&nbsp;– as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area."<ref name="Bursey"/>

Marchant's ruling however, was criticized for three reasons:
* The ruling found that Bursey was not the victim of selective prosecution because Bursey was the only person who had refused an order to leave the area.  However, this overlooks the fact that nobody else refused to leave the zone because nobody else was asked to leave.<ref name="katz">Katz, Jonathan. [http://www.slate.com/id/2107012/ Thou Dost Protest Too Much]. [[Slate Magazine]], September 21, 2004. Retrieved January 23, 2007</ref>
* The prosecution claimed that the protected zone around the President was 100 yards wide.  However, it was unmarked, with cars and trucks allowed to pass through and drop off ticket-holders, and nobody was willing to tell protesters where the zone's boundaries were.  Marchant's decision noted this but did not find this unreasonable.<ref name="katz"/>
* Marchant found that in the "age of [[suicide bombing|suicide bombers]]", the Secret Service should have latitude to get rid of anyone suspicious who is standing near the president's route.  However, given that the reason Bursey was singled out by the Secret Service was his sign, "it's enough to make anyone with a dissenting view think twice before deciding to stand out from a crowd."<ref name="katz"/>

===ACLU litigation===
In 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Secret Service, ''[[ACORN v. Secret Service]]'', representing the [[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]] (ACORN).  "The federal court in Philadelphia dismissed that case in March [2004] after the Secret Service acknowledged that it could not discriminate against protesters through the use of out-of-sight, out-of-earshot protest zones."<ref name="ACLU2">[https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11509prs20041209.html ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Protesters Arrested at Bush Rally in Pennsylvania]. ACLU press release, December 9, 2004. Retrieved on December 22, 2006.</ref>  Another 2003 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia, ''[[ACORN v. Philadelphia]]'', charged that the [[Philadelphia Police Department]], on orders from the Secret Service, had kept protesters "further away from the site of presidential visits than Administration supporters.  A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told [[ACLU of Pennsylvania]] Legal Director [[Stefan Presser]] that he was only following Secret Service orders."<ref name="ACLU"/><ref>[http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/acorn-docket-edpa-03cv4312.html ACORN v. Philadelphia] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070224015243/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/acorn-docket-edpa-03cv4312.html |date=February 24, 2007 }} docket sheet. WarLaw archive</ref> However, the court found the ACLU lacked [[standing (law)|standing]] to bring the case and dismissed it.<ref>[http://www.fepproject.org/factsheets/politicalspeech.html Fact Sheet on Political Dissent and Censorship] The [[Free Expression Policy Project]], November 2006. Retrieved December 22, 2006.</ref>

<blockquote>The Secret Service says it does establish 'public viewing areas' to protect dignitaries but does not discriminate against individuals based on the content of their signs or speech. 'Absolutely not,' said Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the agency created to protect the president. 'The Secret Service makes no distinction on the purpose, message or intent of any individual or group.' Civil libertarians dispute that. They cite a [[Corpus Christi, Texas|Corpus Christi]], Texas, couple, Jeff and Nicole Rank, as an example. The two were arrested at a Bush campaign event in [[Charleston, West Virginia|Charleston]], West Virginia, on July 4, 2004, when they refused to take off anti-Bush shirts. Their shirts read, 'Love America, Hate Bush' ... The ACLU found 17 cases since March 2001 in which protesters were removed during events where the president or vice president appeared. And lawyers say it's an increasing trend.<ref name="Redner">Montgomery, Ben. Is It Free Speech If Protesters in Effect Are Put in Quarantine? The ''[[Tampa Tribune]]'', July 4, 2005. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis on December 20, 2006</ref> </blockquote>

According to Jeff Rank, Nicole Rank's shirt did say "Love America, Hate Bush" while Jeff Rank's shirt said "Regime change starts at home."{{Clarify|date=February 2021}}<ref name="rank">[https://www.aclu.org/multimedia/2006conference/oct16_jeff_rank.mp3 Jeff Rank, while at a reception for ACLU clients, talks about the repercussions of criticizing President Bush.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091011101803/http://www.aclu.org/multimedia/2006conference/oct16_jeff_rank.mp3 |date=October 11, 2009 }} From [http://action.aclu.org/conference/podcasts.html Podcasts: Voices From the Conference]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070220052328/http://action.aclu.org/conference/podcasts.html |date=February 20, 2007 }} October 16, 2006</ref>

The incident occurred several months after the Secret Service's pledge in ''ACORN v. Secret Service'' not to discriminate against protesters.  "The charges against the Ranks were ultimately dismissed in court and the mayor and city council publicly apologized for the arrest.  City officials also said that local law enforcement was acting at the request of Secret Service."<ref name="ACLU3">[https://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11462prs20040914.html Secret Service and White House Charged with Violating Free Speech Rights in ACLU Lawsuit].  ACLU press release, September 14, 2004. Retrieved on December 22, 2006.</ref>  ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen pointed out that "The Secret Service has promised to not curtail the right to dissent at presidential appearances, and yet we are still hearing stories of people being blocked from engaging in lawful protest", said Hansen.  "It is time for the Secret Service to stop making empty promises."<ref name="ACLU3"/>  The Ranks subsequently filed a lawsuit, ''[[Rank v. Jenkins]]'', against Deputy [[Assistant to the President]] Gregory Jenkins and the Secret Service.  "The lawsuit, ''Rank v. Jenkins'', is seeking unspecified damages as well as a declaration that the actions leading to the removal of the Ranks from the Capitol grounds were unconstitutional."<ref name="ACLU3"/>  In August 2007, the Ranks settled their lawsuit against the Federal Government.  The government paid them $80,000, but made no admission of wrongdoing.<ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3489979 Feds Pay $80,000 Over Anti-Bush T-Shirts]. ABC News. August 16, 2007</ref>  The Ranks' case against Gregory Jenkins is still pending in the District of Columbia.{{Update inline|date=February 2021}}<ref>Chris Weigant. [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/exclusive-interview-with-_b_60934.html Exclusive Interview With ACLU Lawyer In Bush Rally Free Speech Case]. August 17, 2007</ref>

As a result of ACLU [[subpoena]]s during the [[Discovery (law)|discovery]] in the ''Rank'' lawsuit, the ACLU obtained the White House's previously classified [[presidential advance manual]].<ref name="manual"/>  The manual gives people organizing presidential visits specific advice for preventing or obstructing protests.  "There are several ways the advance person" – the person organizing the presidential visit – "can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators.  First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.  The formation of 'rally squads' is a common way to prepare for demonstrators ... The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform  ... As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."<ref name="manual">[https://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf  Presidential Advance Manual]. October 2002 edition.</ref>