Protecting Our Rights to Assemble and Petition

Published May 30, 2013

By Tom Campbell

by Tom Campbell

One of the inalienable rights of citizenship in this nation is the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. Recent events at our General Assembly, however, warrant concern that those freedoms might be in jeopardy.

The state NAACP, along with others, has made no secret of their opposition to actions taken by this General Assembly and have declared to assemble at the legislative building on Mondays to protest. Each week the crowds grow in numbers, with protestors carrying signs, chanting and congregating in the public areas of the building.

Is this considered a “peaceable assembly?” Security personnel at the legislative building evidently don’t think so and have ordered the protestors to disburse and leave. When protestors refuse to do so they told they are trespassing and, after a second warning, are arrested. To date, some 150 arrests have been made.

But there are clear instances where persons merely observing the protests were also told they had to leave the building. In one instance, Reverend Vernon Tyson, a retired Methodist pastor, was told to leave. When he inquired why he must leave he was told that he was trespassing. “Well, I’m a taxpaying citizen,” Vernon responded in a video interview, “and this is the people’s house and I don’t see how I can trespass in a house that I helped build – and I’m not blocking anybody and I’m not demonstrating. I’m not singing. I’m not clapping my hands. I’m not making any noise. The only people I talk to are you,” Tyson said he reported telling the security guard. He was arrested anyway.

Let us be clear that behavior that inhibits the work inside any public building, is loud, abusive, violent or disruptive cannot be condoned and could be sufficient cause for arrest if violators do not disburse. But arbitrary rules passed by legislators or any public bodies to prevent peaceable assembly are just as intolerable. They are unconstitutional.

There is an important message here. We do not have to agree with those who protest or approve their manner or messages. It is understandable that public officials don’t like having people protesting their actions and equally understandable that those charged with maintaining security be concerned with the safety of people and property.  But we have a long and storied tradition of defending with every fiber of our being every citizen’s right to assemble and petition.

North Carolina refused to ratify the United States Constitution until this and nine other freedoms were guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Those guarantees were important enough to withhold our joining the new union then and are no less important today. We urge our legislative leaders, security personnel and all public officials to honor those principles we struggled to obtain and, at the same time, send strong signals they will be safeguarded for future generations.

May 31, 2013 at 8:54 am
Atnor Prime says:

"Let us be clear that behavior that inhibits the work inside any public building, is loud, abusive, violent or disruptive cannot be condoned and could be sufficient cause for arrest if violators do not disburse."

Huh? Isnt that what Tyson was doing? Or is it the loud part thats more important... so if they held a silent sit-in it would then become a "legal" protest?

It seems to me, he was indeed being disruptive by not leaving. The security was trying to disperse the crowd and clear the area, and he was asked twice to leave and he refused. That's inhibiting the security people from doing their job - at that time, safely clearing the area of all the protesters violating the rules was (I assume) the priority - not stopping to chat and examine and evaluate whether this one guy who's twice refused to leave in the very same vicinity is violating the law.

I dont see the problem - he should have been a big boy and left so the officers could do their job.

Also, I dont get why these protesters think it's better to violate the existing rules for protesting? Is it really necessary to get arrested? I'm all for civil disobedience when there's a point to it - but dont we have a process for protesting the GA? People have been using it for years - I read about groups protesting up there all the time it seems. Why isn't that an acceptable format for these guys to exercise those assembly and petition rights? *shrug*

May 31, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Bill Koch says:

Good comment and good questions.

May 31, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Bill Koch says:

It seems to me you are saying wait till a major riot breaks out before asking people to leave. Seems to me breaking up the group before it becomes a mob is a good idea.