Jackson Free Press

Demonstrators on both sides of the abortion debate recently forced the city of Jackson to address the right to protest in public. Though the state of Mississippi made history earlier this century for demonstrations and rallies on social issues, particularly on civil rights issues, the city of Jackson seems to have no exact number for determining how many demonstrators constitute a "demonstration," even as more radical pro-life groups pledge to storm the "Gates of Hell" here in Jackson in upcoming weeks.

This fuzzy definition caused an uncertain battle last week over whether or not permits were required, and for what kind of assembly, and whether the permits apply to sidewalk demonstrations. As a result, the city is drawing criticism from both sides of the debate—with both Operation Save America and Anti-Racist Action, among others, saying that the city provided uneven enforcement of permitting ordinances at best.

"The city's special-events ordinance contains no number," says Pieter Teeuwissen, an attorney for the city. "One of the arguments (Operation Save America) was making was that the ordinance just wasn't clear enough."

OSA attempted to file a temporary restraining order against the city July 18, seeking to stop the city from restricting its demonstrations throughout the city limits. OSA claimed the city was unfairly restricting its demonstrations after some members were shooed away by police when they could produce no permits for sidewalk demonstrations up and down State Street, especially in front of University Medical Center.

OSA leader Flip Benham argued that demonstrators didn't need permits to demonstrate on the sidewalk so long as they did not restrict passage. In a rare instance, members of the opposing pro-abortion rights movement—however heated arguments may have become—agreed completely. By the end of the week, JPD had relaxed their stance.

"I've traded e-mails with OSA and the American Family Association, and it looks like we're on the same page with this regarding the city's interference with a First Amendment right to speech," Brent Cox, the Mississippi ACLU's public education coordinator, told the JFP. The ACLU is investigating whether further action should be taken to ensure that protesters' rights are not violated by police in the future—on either side of the debate.

Attorney Mary Catherine Roper, who advises the Mississippi ACLU, said the city suffered some hiccups, but at least attempted to be accommodating to both sides.

"Jackson's ordinances regarding demonstrations aren't horrible compared to other parts of the country," Roper said. "I think the city worked very hard to work with people."

The city will get another chance to get it right. On July 30, Oh Saratoga, another radical anti-abortion group plans to storm Jackson again, targeting the state's only abortion clinic. And pro-abortion rights demonstrators—including more radical groups like ARA—will gather here again in response.

Previous Comments

ID

66691

Comment

Fortunately, this is one case where the Jackson City Council doesn't have to spend a lot of energy brainstorming and experimenting - they can simply copy systems that already work, namely from cities famous for having lots of experience with this kind of thing (Washington DC, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, just to name four). It'd also help if the police chief contact these police departments in order to get some first-hand pointers on how, where, why, and when it's appropriate to take action against unruly crowds. Ditto for determining if crowds are truly about to get unruly.

Author

Philip

Date

2006-07-26T18:57:24-06:00

ID

66692

Comment

There were some problems with JPD's response, but I will say that I think that, all in all, they did an exceptional job. There was the distinct sense that they were in over their heads, but then OSA lives to put police departments in that position. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-26T19:34:34-06:00

ID

66693

Comment

And I should add that this is not intended as a defense of the ordinances, which clearly need to be examined and in many cases scrapped. I suppose I'm making a distinction between defending the laws and defending law enforcement officers' attempts to enforce them, considering the difficult position they were in. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-26T19:35:58-06:00