COLE: City's attempt to cleanse downtown is just insulting censorship
Some businesses are complaining that political protests, especially Occupy Colorado Springs, scare people away from downtown and deprive the businesses of their potential customers.
Protesters might counter that some businesses, especially Freaky’s and the clubs on Tejon Street, scare people away from downtown and deprive the protesters of their potential audience.
But economic heavyweights have more sway than scraggly Occupiers. Mayor Steve Bach has directed City Attorney Chris Melcher to research the possibility of creating one or more free speech zones, which, if approved, would be the only locations people could protest downtown.
In an interview Thursday, Melcher said that his office was still in the preliminary phase of research, and that he was not in a position to say where the free speech zone might be located or how far the zone of censorship might extend.
Melcher is also researching the best practices of other cities that have outlawed panhandling in certain areas. Mayor Bach is interested in cleansing the “downtown core,” which Melcher defined as stretching from Nevada to Cascade and from Platte to Colorado or Vermijo. This total prohibition would go further than the current ordinance against “aggressive panhandling.”
We can rely on radicals for outrage over efforts to ban begging, but even moderates should reject the idea of zoning political speech. Unlike begging, the right to political protest serves not only an individual, but a collective purpose. The health of our body politic depends on the ability to agitate without undue government interference.
Business owners might argue that, just as certain types of enterprises are zoned out of certain areas without violating property rights, protests could also be zoned out of certain areas without violating the freedom of speech.
But a “free speech zone” designed to protect business would force protesters into a secluded space, where potential consumers of their message couldn’t see them. Not even the New Eros Newsstand and Theater, which fronts, fully visible, on Tejon, is relegated to such obscurity.
In fact, while the First Amendment protects the store’s right to sell pornography, the censorship zone would, if extended to Moreno on downtown’s south side, prevent conservatives and feminists from gathering on the corner to protest the store’s existence.
The Constitution aside, our collective values are seriously askew when we privilege the sale of pornography over political speech.
It’s important not to minimize the concerns of uncomfortable retailers, most of whom, Melcher said, have asked to remain anonymous. Maybe they worry that Occupiers would protest their stores next, or maybe they don’t want to become known as crony capitalists, whose viability depends on special favors from the government.
But if Occupiers created a nuisance, city government facilitated it. On October 21, the planning office issued an unprecedented permit that allowed protesters to keep chairs, tables, and tents in Acacia Park for 30 days, and even to sleep in the tents without violating the city’s no-camping ordinance. Now, rather than simply resolving not to grant such permits in the future, the city is going to the other extreme and researching a ban on protests altogether.
When I attended Palmer High School, right across the street, Acacia Park was teeming with drug dealers. Little delinquents would yell “5-0!” or “6-up!” to warn their crews that police were about to drive down the sidewalks. Now the park has become a hub for all manner of political activity, including tea parties.
After such a great leap forward, from the depths of degeneracy into the center of the American experiment, the idea that the city would intervene to ensure that consumers aren’t exposed to unpleasant politics is insulting.
Daniel Cole is a regular opinion columnist for The Gazette. He teaches high school English and is a translator.
