Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Sunday called for Minneapolis to “set up a peaceful protest zone so that these individuals can exercise their First Amendment rights and do so peacefully.” Since 9/11, “free speech zones” have been one of the biggest constitutional shams around.

Both major political parties have used “free speech zone” restrictions to seek to silence dissent.  As I wrote in 2004 in The Baltimore Sun, the Democratic National Convention that year was downright bizarre:

“In Boston, police and convention organizers aimed to restrict protesters to a large patch of asphalt in a dank and dark area below an elevated subway line, nearby highways overhead. Internet blogger Gan Golan described the area: ‘It’s like a scene from some post-apocalyptic movie — a futuristic, industrial detention area from a Mad Max film. You are surrounded on all sides by concrete blocks and steel fencing, with razor wire lining the perimeter. Then, there is a giant black net over the entire space.’ The ambience was accentuated by the police helicopters patrolling overhead, by the omnipresent National Guardsmen in their camo outfits and by the state police occasionally prancing around in their black armor suits.”

Federal judge Douglas Woodlock declared that the designated protest area looked like “an internment camp.” Convention organizers justified covering the area with netting because of the danger that protesters might throw something at convention delegates. The possibility that one demonstrator might throw one apple at one delegate justified the preemptive caging of all demonstrators. Unfortunately, the U.S. government does not use the same stringent standard when bombing foreign countries.

The level of BS surrounding that “internment camp” reached comical levels. A lawyer for the Boston Police Department claimed, “Nobody is being required to use the demonstration zone. The demonstration zone is provided merely for those people who wish to be able to express themselves directly to the delegates.” The government pre-emptively decided that all protesters were collectively guilty and thus deserve preventative incarceration.

The Boston “free speech zone” illustrated how Democrats adopted one of W. Bush’s most repressive trademarks used to pre-emptively silence protesters across the land. At a 2003 speech by Bush in St. Louis, the ACLU’s Denise Lieberman complained, “No one could see [the protestors] from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn’t allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media.” Protestors were also severely restricted at the 2004 Republican convention in New York City.

Then-Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and eleven House colleagues sent a letter to President Bush in 2003 condemning the administration’s crackdowns on demonstrators:

“As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a ‘free speech zone.’ In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens’ rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way that the president finds politically amenable…We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in ‘zoning’ constitutional freedoms, and that being politically annoying to the president of the United States is not a criminal offense. This [Bursey] prosecution smacks of the use of the Sedition Acts two hundred years ago to protect the president from political discomfort. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.”

Back in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey responded on Sunday to Noem:

“First Amendment speech is not limited to one park or one section of the city. You are allowed to protest, so long as you’re doing it peacefully. And by the way, we’ve got tens of thousands of people in Minneapolis…peacefully expressing their First Amendment rights.”

DHS is seeking to enforce a “cone of silence” over all its operations—including information that has already been publicly disclosed. On Sunday’s Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan asked Noem, “Tell me about the officer, Jonathan Ross.”

Noem was outraged at the question: “Don’t say his name! I mean, for heaven’s sake, we shouldn’t have people continue to dox law enforcement.”

Brennan replied, “His name is public.”

Noem answered, “I know, but that doesn’t mean it should continue to be said.”

When did the names of federal agents reach holy par with the name Jehovah in the Monty Python Life of Brian movie?

Noem derided Brennan’s question about Ross’s health as an outrageous intrusion into his medical privacy. Noem recognizes no obligation to provide evidence to substantiate the official claim that Ross’s torso suffered internal bleeding. Unfortunately, Renee Good forfeited her privacy rights after Ross shot her three times. The Trump administration has already absolved Ross for killing Good but federal lawyers are hot on the trail seeking to file charges against Good’s wife.

It would be absurd to expect DHS to show good faith on “free speech zones” when the feds have already proclaimed that it is a crime for citizens to videotape ICE officers in public. As Fox News’ Minneapolis reported, “A DHS bulletin issued last June identified the use of cameras, live-streaming interactions with officers, and video recording at protests as ‘unlawful civil unrest’ tactics and ‘threats.’” The DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs asserted last summer that “videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents…[We] will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law.” An ongoing lawsuit claims that Noem “established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime.” Going back almost a decade, federal appeals courts have unanimously ruled that “there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public.”

Protesting federal abuses doesn’t entitle angry citizens to commit violence or trespass. Some Minnesota protestors deserve to be arrested—the same way that a smattering of the protestors who destroyed property or assailed police on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol deserved arrest. Simply because some people are jerks doesn’t mean everyone else within city limits forfeits their constitutional rights. The anti-ICE knuckleheads who outrageously intruded in a private church in Minneapolis and disrupted its religious service last Sunday deserve to be punished.

Free speech zones are a pre-emptive strike against American freedom. To designate a free speech zone is to delegitimize free speech everywhere outside the pen. It is absurd to presume that no one has the right to get close enough to holler at a politician. If federal policymakers cannot stand to hear angry protests, they should commit fewer outrages.