Occupy CR Saga Moves to Federal Court

Today's print column.

We may soon find out if the First Amendment covers camping on a vacant lot on the corner of First Street and M Avenue NW.

It seems like a fine place to exercise free speech, to peaceably assemble, to petition for a redress of grievances. Lots of open space, thanks to the flood of 2008. Plenty of parking. Camping is not my bag, but to each their own.

Occupy Cedar Rapids has been camping there for nearly a month. As of my last visit last week, there were a couple of tents, a fire pit surrounded by chairs and some stacked wood.

Occupy CR is not exactly like its occupying and protesting cousins across the country. A mass movement founded to rage against government-enabled Wall Street chicanery takes on a different flavor locally. Occupy Cedar Rapids' prime target is city government, which it insists has mishandled flood recovery. Most of the folks I encountered there live, or used to live, in the flooded northwest side.

Last week, that same city served notice that the campsite violates a city ordinance banning the accumulation of personal property on city-owned land. The lot, bought out by FEMA, is now owned by the city. That action made a small, largely ignored protest into a much bigger news story. And now the whole saga is headed to federal court.

I don't see local issues the way Occupy Cedar Rapids does. Any legitimate beefs it has with city decisions are tough to mine from a torrent of accusations and anger. But I also haven't experienced the pain and frustration these folks have endured. And frankly, based on the reception I received during my visits to the protest, I doubt they care much what I think.

But I care a lot about Occupy Cedar Rapids' right to occupy public ground and say its piece. Put up a tent, even. Build a campfire.

The sentiment behind that familar quote attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is getting tougher to find. It's been replaced with “I disagree with what you say, and I'll fight like heck to make sure I never, ever have to hear it again.” Our comfort zones have precious little room for discomfort.

But the plain fact remains that the First Amendment is only as strong as our tolerance for disagreement, our capacity to allow for expression we dislike, even passionately. For it to endure, the short fuse must yield to the deep breath.

That tolerance is most important for government. Just because a city can scour its code for a legal broom to scatter its critics, doesn't mean that it's right or wise.

The city could have left these folks alone with an outlet for their passion in peaceful protest. There have been few complaints, and the lot being occupied is likely to remain vacant for years. Instead, it's trying to curtail liberty on a technicality. I hope the court is more tolerant, but I'm prepared for disappointment.