Higher principle overrides city rule

The Gazette Editorial Board

----

Our rights to speak freely, peaceably assemble and petition our government for redress of grievances must have been important to the founders of this nation. That's why they spelled them out in the First Amendment. Up top. Front and center.

It's a crystal clear message to all levels of government that this country is anchored in the idea of a free, peaceful expression of viewpoints, and that there had better be a compelling reason for taking any action to impede those rights.

We think the city of Cedar Rapids should keep that message in mind as it contemplates enforcing an ordinance prohibiting personal property on city land against protesters camped at the corner of First Street NW and M Avenue.

Occupy Cedar Rapids has been at the site for roughly three weeks, with tents and a campfire and piles of firewood. This week, the city served notice that it intends to remove any personal property from the lot, which was purchased through a post-flood FEMA buyout and is owned by the city. Instead of letting winter curtail the protest, the city is taking action.

The city says the protest can continue, just without any tents, fire pit or other items. But because the point of Occupy is to occupy, the city's edict effectively would end the protest at that site. The city says the group could have applied for a special events permit, but did not. The group counters that it has a right to camp on land that is designated as “greenway” in flood control plans, and has gone to court to stop the city. A hearing is set for Monday.

We acknowledge that the city probably has the legal right to remove property under the ordinance. But we'd also point out that it's unlikely the ordinance was written and approved with the intent that it be used to clear out a peaceful political protest. The tool being used by the city does not fit the situation.

And the situation is that a handful of folks with grievances against the city have been gathering at a vacant lot in a flooded-out neighborhood to discuss those grievances and raise public awareness. There's no evidence that the protest has done any harm to anyone. And a handful of complaints received by the city hardly adds up to a compelling case for city intervention.

It's the sort of gathering that a city should tolerate in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment, even if it seems to run afoul of the letter of a city ordinance. Protecting free political speech is a higher calling for our leaders than protecting vacant lots from tents and firewood.

The fight for civil liberties and against government overreaction to peaceful protest is not about just sticking up for individuals or groups that share our own views. Our liberty is only secured when it's secured for everyone.

n Comments: thegazette.com/category/opinion/editorial or editorial@sourcemedia.net