The United States has a long history of using public places, especially in towns and cities, to dissent through protests as a means of expressing people’s feelings. Indeed, the United States was founded through protests and dissent against the authoritarian and oppressive rule of the British Crown in the 1770s and 1780s. Between the time of independence and the mid-1900s, protests were common as people expressed their feelings towards certain issues in public places (Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009). Historical accounts provide evidence that most of the protests during this period took place in open, especially across streets, and were often violent as the protestors would block traffic and force the police to respond violently (Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009). Indeed, most protestors at the time cited their rights under the First Amendment, but authorities would use their own interpretation of the statute to suppress the dissidents (O’Neill, 2006). It was not until the 1930s that the use of parks and sidewalks started becoming the official places for protests and dissents.
Courts started defining the type of protests that should be allowed and the places that they should take place in the 1930s. Specifically, in the case law Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the authorities’ ban on political meetings in streets, parks, and sidewalks were in violation of the right to freedom of assembly as provided in the First Amendment. Consequently, people were provided with the right to protest in parks and on sidewalks (Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009). However, the police continued to respond to such protests with excessive force and violence throughout the 1960s and 1970s (O’Neill, 2006). Indeed, violent protests and police responses in this era throughout the U.S. triggered the federal authorities to consider attempts to resolve the problem. In July 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (O’Neill, 2006). One of the key issues in the report by the commission indicated that the riots in big cities across the country were violent because of commonplace encounters between the citizens and the police.
The commission further stated that the problems could be solved if the protestors and the police agreed on the time and places of protests. The Kenner Commission of 1967 and the Eisenhower Commission of 1968 further stressed the need for securing places for demonstrations to prevent city-wide street protests that were often violent (Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009). The outcome of these commissions was a ‘negotiated management model,’ which required the police and the demonstrators to negotiate on time, place, and manner of protests as a means of preventing violent encounters between the two sides. This approach helped reduce violence to a great extent as it required an agreement on the time and place of protests. Nevertheless, streets were still the main venues, and sidewalks were yet to be considered the official places for the protests.
The constitutional right to hold dissent on sidewalks was not provided through amendment or statutes but by courts. Specifically, the case law United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) is credited for protecting the people’s right to hold protests on sidewalks. Justice Byron White ruled that sidewalks were public places, which were in turn connected to public forums. He further ruled that the authorities had the responsibility to enact reasonable place, time, and manner of restrictions with certain conditions (O’Neill, 2006). According to the ruling, sidewalks are among areas of public property that people should use for expressive activities and should be considered without further inquiry as places of public forum property. Consequently, this ruling gave people the right to hold protests on sidewalks.
How Cities Control Political Dissent on Streets and Sidewalks and the Basis for Controlling Protests
To prevent and control protests on sidewalks, cities and other urban centers across the United States have been employing various approaches. In particular, the idea is to circumvent the laws that give the people the right to protests on public sidewalks. One of the most applicable strategies that cities use to control picketing and protests on sidewalks is to privatize these facilities. Through the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), cities and other urban centers pass bylaws that enable business owners to tax themselves as a means of augmenting public services (O’Neill, 2006). They also use this strategy to improve designated districts for self-maintenance. BIDs typically provide such services as cleaning and maintenance, sidewalk beautification, and private security officers. The provision of private security officers means that the public cannot hold dissenting events such as picketing and protests because these areas are already secured as private places. Therefore, the sidewalks cease to qualify as public places as provided under the ruling in the case law United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).
Furthermore, cities have been fencing some parts of sidewalks for outdoor seating as a form of privatization. They use fences as forms of boundaries to separate public spaces from privatized realms. For example, in the state of California, the law stipulates that such products as alcohol can be sold only in enclosed spaces and demarcated areas (Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009). Therefore, the cities use this clause to fence some parts of sidewalks and allow private businesses to use the spaces for selling such products, and prevent citizens from holding picketing and protests in these places. In essence, when fencing is completed, the specific spaces in sidewalks cease to be public places and thus cannot be used for dissenting.
Another strategy that cities have been using to prevent dissenting is containment. The cities determine who has access to which sidewalks, which is often controversial (O’Neill, 2006). Cities seek to contain undesirable uses such as prostitution, vending, and protests in certain areas and restrict them to others (Loukaitou-Sideris & Ehrenfeucht, 2009). Political events and protests are sometimes confined to officially approved protest zones with the aim of keeping them from sidewalks. The idea is to ensure that protestors can only access limited spaces and sidewalks while the majority of the public area is kept free of such events.
De-emphasis is another strategy that some cities across the country have been using to discourage protests and other forms of dissenting from public spaces, especially sidewalks. For instance, cities let and encourage developers of privately provided open spaces and plazas to use blank facades, enclosing walls, and entrances through parking structures (O’Neill, 2006). The idea is to use these facilities to separate privately-held from public parts of sidewalks (O’Neill, 2006). They normally establish underground and overhead spaces such as sunken skywalks and plazas to ensure that pedestrians move around freely without accessing the streets and sidewalks. Examples of cities using this strategy include Cincinnati, Detroit, Boston, and Minneapolis (O’Neill, 2006). In these cities, skywalks link high-rise towers to tunnel networks that lead pedestrians throughout downtowns without using public sidewalks. In this way, sidewalks are left free of people, and protestors are discouraged from using them because they are likely to attract few participants and with little public attention.
Why Cities Try to Control Political Dissent
The main aim of controlling political dissent is to keep cities governable and business-friendly. Indeed, cities that have experienced massive protests and other political events tend to lose tax money before, during, and after the events as people and businesses fear violence and keep out of town (O’Neill, 2006). Business people fear violence, destruction of property, and loss of machinery and utilities that often take place during protests. Historical records show that during many political dissent events, violence and riots occur, and some sections of the public take advantage to destroy and steal from businesses (O’Neill, 2006). Because businesses remain closed, cities suffer a loss of tax money. In some cases, the cities are held responsible for such crimes and can be sued for damages and indeed forced to compensate businesses (O’Neill, 2006). Furthermore, city authorities fear that violent political events can result in injuries and even loss of lives, which can overwhelm hospitals and other services they provide. All these can portray city authorities as inefficient while also placing more costs on their budgets.
Why do Protests Happen?
Protests are historically held purposefully, with the participants having a common agenda and aim. Protests are a form of public dissent aimed at making the participants’ opinions heard as a way of influencing public opinion and/or government policy (Levinson & Wilson, 2020). In addition, protests may also be aimed at undertaking direct action as a means of enacting desired changes or blocking some actions by governments, businesses, or institutions. In most cases, protests take place against or in support of certain causes that in some way involve the government. In U.S. history, early protests were held by plantation farmers against government policies and actions. For example, plantation farmers in the 1700s protested against the British Crown’s tax policies that were often oppressive and anti-business (Levinson & Wilson, 2020). In the 19th and 20th centuries, protests were held to petition industries and the government to provide good working conditions for laborers, especially in factories (Levinson & Wilson, 2020). Consequently, the reasons were mainly economic but driven by political forces within the society.
How The Seattle, Los Angeles, and Miami Examples Help One Understand the Black Lives Matter Protests
At different times throughout the 20th century, there were protests as protestors pressed authorities and the society in general to change the way workers, minority racial groups, and others were treated. In modern times, the U.S. is witnessing protests aimed at denouncing the way the police force has been treating members of minority groups (Levinson & Wilson, 2020). The shooting, torture, and murder of members of the Black community in various instances, such as George Floyd, have contributed to the Black Lives Matter Movement, which saw a series of protests across the nation in 2020 (Levinson & Olmos, 2020). Consequently, it is clear that protests occur when people are dissatisfied, concerned, oppressed, or disgruntled with certain aspects of their society and believe that taking action will bring some desired change.
The examples of Seattle, Los Angeles, and Miami protests help one to understand the Black Lives Matter protests in response to Portland. In particular, the examples provide evidence that such protests are purposeful and can spread from one place to another when there are similarities in the affected areas (Levinson & Wilson, 2020). For instance, when Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the protests were more pronounced in other cities than where he was killed because the issue of racism in the police force was perhaps deeper than in the place of murder (Olmos et al., 2020). Consequently, it can be concluded that protests happen because there are often deeply seated social and economic issues that affect a certain section of the society and which people feel must be addressed.
Conclusion
There is a long history of using public places, especially in towns and cities, to dissent through protests as a means of expressing people’s feelings. Early protests were driven by the people’s quest for good working conditions, the need for change in politics and economics, and the quest for equality. These factors still drive the modern political protests in the country. Noteworthy, using streets and sidewalks for protests has been a common way of dissenting in the country. Indeed, the use of sidewalks helps the participants to attract an audience and the attention of the public and the administration.
References
Levinson, J., & Olmos, S. (2020). In America’s whitest city, Black activists struggle to separate themselves from anarchists. OPB News.
Levinson, J., & Wilson, C. (2020). Federal law enforcement use unmarked vehicles to grab protesters off Portland streets. OPB News.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Ehrenfeucht, R. (2009). Sidewalks: Conflict and negotiation over public space. MIT Press.
Olmos, S., Rojas, R., & Baker, M. (2020). From Antifa to Mothers in Helmets, Diverse elements fuel Portland protests. New York Times.
O’Neill, K. F. (2006). Privatizing public forums to eliminate dissent. First Amendment Law Review, 5, 201.