HOW FAR CAN CITIES GO IN CONTROLLING PROTESTS?

Case Before High Court Argues Whether Free-Speech Rights Extend To Permit
Process.

The Windy City Hemp Development Board makes no secret of its public-policy
positions. Members believe marijuana should be legalized. They also believe
they have a right to advocate their position by holding protest rallies in
public parks.

But in March 1997, the Chicago Park District turned down the group's
application for a rally permit.

Members responded with a lawsuit, claiming that the park-permit process in
Chicago was being used as a form of censorship in violation of the First
Amendment.

The city says the permit denial had nothing to do with the group's
pro-marijuana message, but was based on permit violations at an earlier rally.

The resulting case, Thomas v. Chicago Park District, has touched off a
debate over the free-speech implications of government efforts to regulate
parks and streets.

Today, the debate arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices must
decide whether denial of the rally permit was a valid exercise of a local
licensing scheme designed to run a park smoothly - or whether the denial
amounts to an effort by the government to muzzle the Hemp Development Board
by preventing it from holding rallies in a city park.

Free-speech advocates are hoping the justices use the case to make clear
that First Amendment protections extend to government-permit regulations.
Similar decisions have been written by federal-appeals judges in cases in
New York and Gainesville, Fla.

"Core political speech is the center of the First Amendment," says Wayne
Giampietro, a Chicago lawyer representing plaintiff Caren Cronk Thomas and
the Hemp Board. "It is certainly one of the most precious things that we
have, and no government agency is going to be allowed to cut it back in
even the slightest way."

Seattle Violence Still in Mind

On the other side, city officials are watching the Chicago case to see to
what extent they may regulate park and city street operations without
running afoul of the Constitution. In addition, the case could help
identify constitutionally permissible ways to control large and potentially
violent demonstrations. Such protests marred the World Trade Organization
meeting in Seattle in 1999 and prompted a massive police presence at a
Washington, D.C., demonstration earlier this year.

"Like almost any big city or the national parks, the Chicago Park District
has a system of regulations to control the multiple uses that people want
to make of the parks," says Steven Weiss, a lawyer for the Chicago Park
District. "The denial of the permit has nothing to do with the message that
was being advocated."

Mr. Weiss says city officials were unaware of the Hemp Board's political
message. He says that at the time of the denial, the group's application
was signed simply "Ad Hoc Coalition."

How the justices will view the case is uncertain, legal analysts say, with
no clear majority on any side of the issue.

One key will be how the justices view the action by Chicago park officials.
Are the permit regulations simply a time, place, and manner restriction
enforced by city officials without regard to the type of rally being
planned? Or do the park district's actions amount to a form of censorship?

In addition, the justices must consider whether permit denials should be
afforded special, expedited access to a judge. The judge's role would be to
ensure that the permit denial process was in accord with the free-speech
guarantees of the US Constitution.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals in
Chicago ruled in September of last year that the park's permit denial was
not a form of censorship.

"It is the censor's business to make a judgment about the propriety of the
content or message of the proposed expressive activity," Judge Richard
Posner writes in his decision. "The regulation here does not authorize any
judgment about the content of any speeches."

Regulating vs. Preventing

Instead, the appeals court found that the Chicago Park District was engaged
in the business of regulating access to the park, rather than preventing
access to targeted permit applicants.

"A park is a limited space, and to allow unregulated access to all comers
could easily reduce rather than enlarge the park's utility as a forum for
speech," Mr. Posner writes. "Just imagine two rallies held at the same time
in the same park area using public-address systems that drowned out each
other's speakers."

Lawyers for the Hemp Board disagree with Posner's analysis. "A government
must never be allowed to decide who gets to speak in a public forum and who
doesn't," writes Orlando attorney Richard Wilson in his brief on behalf of
the Hemp Board.

"First Amendment jurisprudence has been turned on its ear," he says.
"Unless Posner's decision is reversed, political speakers whose message may
be at odds with the current bureaucratic 'party line' will face so many
obstacles that many will be silenced."

Lani Williams is a lawyer with the International Municipal Lawyers
Association in Washington. She says city officials need leeway to be able
to run their cities without having to accommodate every group that wants to
hold a rally.

"The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to express your
opinion wherever, and however, and whenever you want. The First Amendment
still has to be balanced with other interests," she says. "The position of
the Hemp Board is tantamount to saying that we can come along and close
down your streets whenever we want to have a parade. That is unworkable."

A decision in the case is expected by next June.