positions known to the government and others throughout the country. As a matter of fact, for those of modest means, or with little or no assets, a demonstration is often the only affordable tool for effective protest. The two-fold purpose of a demonstration is "to try to impress a target" and at the same time "publicize the cause to others." Concerned Jewish Youth v. McGuire, 621 F.2d 471, 482 (2d Cir. 1980) (Mansfield, J., dissenting).
regulations has no discernible direct effect on presidential security. It merely raises the level of anxiety among the security forces. That is to say, the conduct was not directed toward the White House or the President as a threat ta the safety of either. It was conceded at trial that demonstrators are not suicidal. The contemplated danger as to what some terrorist might do via exploiting the lawful activity of these demonstrators was all speculation. This, in itself, is not to be criticized, inasmuch as any security measures should be predicated on a "better safe than sorry' premise. But, inherent in such an approach is the probability of overbreadth in the choice of countermeasures. It appears to the court that this is such a case.
elevated observation posts which allow them to look down on the sidewalk and across Pennsylvania Avenue and into Lafayette Park even when signs 10 feet tall are on the sidewalk. And closed-circuit television affords constant surveillance of the White House grounds and the sidewalk. A requirement that the bottom edge of the signs held or set down within 3 feet of the ledge of the fence be at least 18-24 inches above the sidewalk level would eliminate the problem of concealment of items close to the ledge. While the Secret Service primarily operates from the grounds inside the fence, it is obvious that whatever problem of observation that might remain could be adequately dealt with by simply stationing someone on the sidewalk side of the fence, either Secret Service personnel or Park Police. Defendants assert some reticence about placing uniformed officers on the sidewalk in any number because they did not want to present the image of a 'banana republic.' A plainclothesman here and there could solve all of the problems of observation from the sidewalk side as well as the image problem.
any device of any kind to help them over. One person, according " to the testimony, used the help of a structure of some sort.
might be concealed in wooden signs is adequately dealt with by the thickness requirement of not more than 1/4 inch on all signs. The testimony is that the thinnest sheet explosive is itself 1/4 inch, and that a sign of that thickness regardless of its composition has no capacity to conceal such explosives.
ends would completely eliminate the possibility of hollow supports being used to transport explosives or other dangerous devices. And it has already been noted that hollow tubing of various sorts are not prohibited.
and that "the First Amendment simply does not guarantee news publicity for speakers and demonstrators." (Defendants' post-trial brief at 80.) While the court does not dispute this contention, it must also note that the government should not be allowed to deprive demonstrators of the opportunity to acquire publicity afforded by the center zone unless it can be established that some governmental interest cannot be served otherwise. In the court's view this has not been done. At any rate, it appears that any conceivable governmental purpose could well be served by allowing stationary signs, at least momentarily, in the center portion of the sidewalk. Thus all concepts of "the White House experience" would have a chance for enjoyment.
does not appear to enhance in any meaningful fashion the ability to identify abandoned parcels. The overall effect according to the government's testimony regarding the parcel regulation, is that the security people feel more comfortable with it.
And in speaking of first amendment activities on streets, Professor Tribe specifically observes that: "more focused regulations of 'time, place, or manner' are constitutionally compelled--even if the regulation challenged as invalid leaves would-be speakers or paraders with ample alternatives for communicating their views." Id. at 689 (footnotes omitted) (citing Schneider v. State, 308 U.S.147, 163 (1939) and quotation of Schneider in Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 556 (1976) 'one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in source other place,").
declares that certain portions cf the regulations in issue are unconstitutional and that the defendants be enjoined from the enforcement thereof
(signed, William B. Bryant)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date:. April 26, 1984