Pulse of the Peninsula: G.N. Park District policy violates free speech

Karen Rubin

What are reasonable limits on free speech? There have always been debates but the intensity has surely risen with the tragedy in Charlottesville, with cyberbullying and trolling.

There actually are limits on speech — incendiary speech, libel, slander, threatening violence.

Certainly waving around assault weapons, marching with flaming torches which are intended to intimidate and limit others’ rights to free speech, assembly, press, religion, should not be considered under the banner of protected speech, just as extortion is not protected speech.

I happen to believe that political campaigns should be subject to certain “truth-in-advertising” and fraud standards.

And now, what I am going to describe will appear nit-picking, because it comes down to our local government — that government that is closest to us and impacts are day-to-day quality of life — because it has ramifications for free and fair elections.

Summer is a time when residents come out in the greatest numbers for the pool, concerts, and various activities in the parks. In fact parks are one of the few public spaces where just about everyone gathers.

It makes these venues ripe for political candidates who come out to meet and greet. In fact, Firefighters Park in Great Neck Plaza is deemed a “free speech zone.”

But a “Policy on Regulated Communicative Activities at Park District Facilities” that was adopted by the Commissioners in July 2015 would restrict this activity in an arbitrary way.

Despite protestation that “The Board respects the rights that all citizens have under the First Amendment”, the policy is so vague in its language that it can be used to arbitrarily restrict a candidate’s political speech, whenever they feel like it, or simply intimidate a candidate.

The very title “Regulated Communicative Activities” means that it is intended to restrict (regulate) free speech.

Free speech, of course, is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and political speech is given special deference. It’s the reason that “Do not call” lists do not block robo-political calls.

So, on a recent Saturday night, George Maragos who seeks to become the Democratic candidate for Nassau County executive, was wandering around Steppingstone Park, meeting and greeting within the 30-minute window of the concert.

But a candidate for park commissioner is warned against such activity, which is more absurd since the people attending such a gathering would be constituents and should have an interest in personally meeting someone who would seek to represent them.

How would such a vague and intimidating policy even be enforced?

Would a park employee follow around someone to listen in on conversations? And what would be the penalty? Would a park resident be hauled out by security for introducing themselves and shaking hands?

If you impede a candidate’s ability to personally meet-and-greet, that puts the playing field that much more to the already advantaged incumbent, who wears a shirt embroidered with “Commissioner” on the front, gets to speak to the entire audience from the stage at the start of a concert, and greet people on their way out with a cheery, “Did you have a good time?”

Any challenger needs to have deep-enough-pockets to control paid media access in order to even begin to get that kind of recognition.

If the real problem the policy was intended to address is patrons being harassed, regardless of the topic, that could be dealt with differently — for example, stipulating that candidates can only stand at the entrance to the pool and parks and greet people as they enter or exit. And it would seem that a candidate would realize that aggressive politicking that rises to the level of harassment would turn voters off and be self-defeating.

My concern may sound petty but it is not when taken into context with what else is going on to undermine free and fair political process at every level, from local to national: the Trump Justice Department wants records for anyone who accessed an anti-Trump website; the Orwellian-named “Election Integrity” commission wants to collect names, personal data and voting history, prompting many voters to actually cancel their voter registration; states are purging their voter lists without  notice or remedy, restricting access to the polls and putting obstacles to registration sites and polling places, gerrymandering using the most sophisticated data mining apparatus mankind has ever devised; using fake news social media bots and trolls to discourage, confuse and manipulate voters.

And laws that are used to restrict political activity in one place are quickly snapped up by others: for example, a bill to empower motorists to mow down protesters in the streets that was devised against the Standing Rock protesters in North Dakota just passed North Carolina’ House and is being contemplated in five other states.

If such a law were in place in Charlottesville, that man who murdered Heather Heyer would be able to walk free.

This is at a time when our democracy is in dire need of candidates at the local level, but between the money involved and the ease with which trolls can assassinate someone’s character, who dares to come forward?

Indeed, the newly formed New York 2nd District Democrats cannot even find a candidate to challenge Republican Congressman Peter King, who has $2.5 million in the bank, when a challenger would need $4 million.

Free speech can be thorny because sometimes speakers can be obnoxious and inappropriate and even provocative. And as a society, we are wrestling with that.

But what limits we impose on free speech and other civil rights have to be judicious, with an eye to weighing public health and safety, and not be for the purpose of impeding open and fair political contest.

The rules have to stand up for all people and no matter who is in power to decide how and when they are enforced.

(The Great Neck Parks Commission is holding a budget workshop Aug. 31, when there will also be public hearing as to whether to change the election date to Dec. 5 from Dec. 12 so not to conflict with the first night of Hanukkah; the public hearing on the budget is Sept. 7.)

Share this Article