When is Free Speech Not Free Speech in America?
How about right now in Worcester, Massachusetts?
by Ben Dobson (11-25-01)

In Worcester, Massachusetts a group called "Worcester Peace Works" has been protesting US- led military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They gather on the corner of Lincoln Square in the city every Tuesday afternoon and silently hold signs encouraging alternatives to war.

Again, say what you will about these people's viewpoints. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they have a Constitutional right to be there.

I have covered their peace vigils about four times in the past two months, and each time I have been appalled by how they were treated by passersby. While some supported them, a frightening number of people held out their middle fingers, rolled down their windows and shouted obscenities, and others have outright threatened their lives.

Unfortunately, a civilized world may already be gone in Worcester, and it was not the terrorists who brought it on.

But more disturbingly, perhaps, was the use of police surveillance against the group. A woman who would not identify herself approached the group and began taking individual photographs of the people holding signs. She refused to say who she was and fled on foot when more people started confronting her. One peace member was able to snap a photograph of her before she got away. A uniformed police officer standing near the peace group apparently told the members that she was taking surveillance photographs of the crowd for the Worcester Police Department.

Calls to the police department by both my news organization and others were not returned. Once again in American society, there is no one policing the police, and the department could not be held accountable for its actions.

The Worcester Peace Works wrote to Worcester Police Chief James Gallagher with their concerns, and he returned their inquiry with a written reply. The group respectfully declined to share the contents of the letter with the media, citing the fact that it was personally addressed to them. However, Newsworthy Online was able to obtain an internal memo with the contents of the original letter which was distributed to the City Councilors by Worcester's City Manager (see sidebar).

So much for the notion of being innocent until proven guilty. The police department's actions imply that the traditional American value, that one is considered innocent until proven guilt, is no longer applicable in the quest to eliminate terrorism. Photographing people and cataloguing their identities assumes that the participants will be committing crimes in the future, when there is absolutely no basis for that claim. Under current interpretations of the US Constitution, these peace activists are not only exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly, but are not committing a clear and present danger -- the one instance where free speech would not be protected under the Constitution.

Say what you will about these peace protesters. Having covered this story, and heard the vulgarities hurled at these people on the corner of a busy intersection, it is clear that their opinion is in the minority, and some good arguments can be made for why peaceful resolutions in the "war against terrorism" will not work. Regardless, these people are entitled to their opinion, and should be encouraged to express their viewpoints -- an essential function our Constitution allows during this time of national uncertainty.

The police department is intimidating these people. They are not afraid to go public with their views: I interview them for television. The newspaper and local news radio station have taken a big interest in the weekly peace vigils as well. These people hold their signs quietly in one of the busiest intersections in the city of Worcester. They are not afraid of being recognized or having people associate them with an unpopular opinion. However, they legitimately question why the government feels a need to photograph them, and what the government might do with that information. It is a form of subtle intimidation, and may convince an otherwise quiet citizen from publicly voicing dissent.

That would be the greatest disservice to our society. Indeed, the terrorists would have won -- if not the war -- an enormous battle.