In an effort to provide clarity to First Amendment demonstrations and special event permit regulations in Washington, D.C., the National Park Service is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 7.96 for the National Mall, President’s Park and other national parks in the Washington, D.C. area. The Park Service says the modifications would maintain opportunities for people to hold special events and exercise their right to demonstrate while outlining clear parameters that protect the iconic landmarks, views and grounds for use and enjoyment of citizens and visitors from around the globe.
“From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the Ellipse —D.C.’s national parks have always served as a stage for groups wanting their voices heard. The role the National Park Service plays in facilitating these groups’ First Amendment rights—regardless of their views—is not something we take lightly,” said acting National Capital Regional Director Lisa Mendelson-Ielmini. “These proposed changes would provide much needed clarity to regulations while ensuring those unalienable rights remain. They will also ensure that iconic viewsheds are left unobstructed for the millions of people who visit every year to experience them. We have a great opportunity to improve the ways we make these special places accessible while preserving them for future generations. We encourage everyone to review the proposal and share their thoughts.”
The National Mall and President’s Park are regarded as premier civic and symbolic spaces in the United States and the volume and complexity of permit requests has increased dramatically over the years. Each year, the National Park Service issues an average of 750 permits for First Amendment demonstrations, and an additional 1,500 permits for special events in and around D.C. More individuals and groups seek to use these iconic locations for demonstrations or events such as concerts and festivals. As the use of these areas increases, the Park Service is looking for more efficient ways to serve the public while at the same time protecting the resources that others seek to enjoy. For example, this rule would provide more information to permit applicants about the status of their requests and simplify maximum permit duration periods.
The proposed 94-page rule is intended to identify areas that are best suited for the placement of structures such as art installations and concert stages. This would provide permit applicants with more certainty about where their event can take place while protecting iconic viewsheds, such as the view from the White House to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, and places of solemn contemplation, such as the Freedom Wall Plaza at the World War II Memorial.
The rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register next week, and when it is the 60-day comment period bill begin. Once it has been published, you can go to regulations.gov, search for "RIN 1024-AE45," and comment on that page.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
The right to public display of dissent or assent to the actions of our government is established in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. These proposed changes in the rules governing public displays of opinion are clearly intended to infringe or even prevent such displays. Massive protests have been occurring in Washington DC for decades without incident. There is no need for these changes. I strongly oppose them.
"...without incident"?!? You have no basis for that comment and I think decades of US Park Police officers as well as National Mall Superintendents would strongly argue with your assertion.
Rebecca, I don't believe it says anywhere and anytime. I think in light of what we have seen happening (the destruction of memorials, violence, obstructing freeways) these are good common sense measures.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information."
There are reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions that don't really bother me. I have no big issue as long as issuance of "first amendment" permits is free and that any kind of counter-protest permit is reasonably issued. I would also prefer that any application that is timed for the last minute not be done in order to keep counter-protest permits from being filed in time.
However, many suspect this is designed to restrict protests in front of the White House as well as create an economic impediment to holding a rally. Charging a fee is unacceptable in my opinion.
I strongly oppose all of these ridiclous charges, which seem like an effort by the present administration to exert even more control over the peoples freedom of speech and right to protest. absolutely no doubt this proposal violates the First Amendment. *** Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*** Paying for the right to peaceably assemble is Charging the Right to assemble
R-E-L-A-X
This isn't about impeding on our rights to free speech. If you read the proposed rule, the intent is to clarify definitions and learn from decades of managing demonstrations and special events. It also frees other NPS units from being clustered into operating their park use permitting with the downton parks.
My compliments to the folks who are proposing to move this forward. It doesn't appear to be anything sinister - just pragmatic steps to deal with decades of running a challenging operation.
Here's some background:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pressure-builds-as-national-park-se...