Protests outside the White House may soon be limited and experts sound the alarm bell

Last August, the Trump government proposed a rule that would limit the right of protesters to gather in front of the White House and the National Mall, sparking outrage from the ACLU and other groups. defense of civil rights. This rule would also allow the National Parks Service to charge event management fees for events in these areas, which critics have called a "protest fee". The experts tell Bustle that, if instituted, the Trump administration's protest rule could endanger democracy by limiting freedom of expression and threatening organizational efforts at the same time. based.

The proposal is subject to public comment until October 15th. A spokesman for the NPS, which manages these spaces, told Bustle:

If the feedback we receive during this process indicates that cost recovery for First Amendment activities is something to consider in the future, we would of course explore this type of legal issue. For the moment, we are simply seeking the public's perspective on the possibility of recovering the costs associated with protecting the public and protecting the park's resources during these increasingly frequent and complex events. and around the National Mall and President's Park.

But according to Dr. Kelly Clancy, associate professor of political science at Nebraska Wesleyan University, this draft rule is a new effort "to use the National Park Service to continue its practice of stifling dissent." According to Clancy, if such a rule had existed before, it could have affected the rate of participation in many revolutionary demonstrations, from March to Washington in 1963 to Most recent female marches.

"Protest is a fundamental American right," Clancy told Bustle. "The National Mall is the place where we collectively call on our government to do better, to become more accountable to its people, to realize its democratic ideal. against this right, freedom of expression – it is absolute ".

The danger of limiting civil liberties

Limiting the demonstration space in Washington DC does not only make it harder for activists to hold elected officials accountable. According to Julia Hellwege, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of South Dakota, such a rule could also mark a shift towards authoritarianism.

"One can argue that democracy exists in a spectrum, and when governments attempt (or limit) to restrict civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly, this has a negative impact on the level of democracy," Hellwege said. in Bustle. "Many authoritarian regimes have started as democracies, some have become so through institutional changes (such as the limitation of elections) and others are by limiting civil liberties, such as freedom of choice. expression, press, petition and meeting ".

Efforts to limit demonstrations are not new in this country and this administration has been particularly hostile to some protesters. No later than in September, after the first day of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, Donald Trump told The Daily Caller that it was embarrassing to "allow the protesters" in the United States to have "the habit of throwing them to the street". Over the years, he has also repeated many conspiracy theories about "paid protesters," claiming Democrats were paying people to infiltrate his rallies and confront Republican senators.

But protests outside the White House have not been limited to the left, as Clancy pointed out. In 2009, the right-wing Tea Party led the taxpayers' march in Washington, with the goal of rallying to the big government. If Obama had tried to charge event management fees to these protesters, the Conservatives probably would not have taken it lightly, Clancy said.

Who is targeting this proposal?

Suzanne Chod, Associate Professor of Political Science at North Central College, told Bustle that it would ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the rule "aims to deprive a certain type of citizen of his rights".

"The reaction is, as expected, partisan," Chod told Bustle. "While the plan to charge protestors for" event management "costs is for all protesters, it may be the intention to immediately silence groups that are demonstrating now."

However, the fees proposed by the NPS will likely have a disproportionate impact on activists and lobbies with fewer funds and resources. According to Dr. Celina Su, Chair of Urban Studies by Marilyn J. Gittell at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, limiting event space in this way could "have a crippling effect on the organization of the base ", especially because of the occupation of public spaces. is a crucial way for organizers to make their causes more visible.

"Local organizers are already working on very small budgets," Su told Bustle. "They already fear being censored by foundations or larger groups."

The government can argue that it does not explicitly prohibit protests, Su adds, but imposing criteria such as these fees can make the protests extremely difficult to organize and participate in.

"We do not want our speech to be dictated by the one who has more money," added Su.

The effects of the limitation of peaceful demonstrations

Although many experts agree that restricting demonstrations by setting up fees and physical barriers could jeopardize the public perception of democracy, Clancy and Hellwege suggest all two that the rule proposed by the Trump administration could actually spark new manifestations. In fact, Hellwege said that the government's efforts to limit the location and size of protests "could have a revitalizing effect on the population", "forcing" them to react and to gather.

Clancy, on the other hand, predicts that this rule, if instituted, may turn against it; Instead of suppressing dissent, Clancy believes that it could "force protesters to look for more and more radical methods to make their voices heard".

"When you remove that power at the electoral and legislative level, and then remove the right to vote, and then try to limit their protest rights, you systematically eliminate the channels of dissent, which forces radicalization," Clancy said. , showing this moment in protest politics. "These people who have been deprived of their rights have led the fight in the streets and in the rotunda and have really made this moment a moment of activism."

Monica Busch contributed to this report.

This report has been updated.