First Amendment rights are no longer relevant based on recent actions that occurred at both the state Capitol building and around the country this past week.
Phoenix Capitol police Thursday arrested Salvador Reza, a human rights and community activist, for allegedly trespassing at the Senate building. Reza and many other community activists were at the Capitol last week to hear presentations of recent legislation that restricts undocumented individuals from vehicle usage, public schools, public housing and health care.
As Reza entered the building Thursday, police officers countered him and said he was banned from the building on a list approved by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa.
Reza was unaware of any ban against him and refused to leave under the rights granted by the First Amendment, specifically the right to petition. He was then arrested and taken to Fourth Avenue Jail.
It seems like Pearce is cleaning house at the Capitol for all those that oppose his sponsored legislation. Is this legal? Is the First Amendment no longer relevant for citizens who want to express their concerns with laws that could affect them?
Police said that Reza is not the only one banned from the building and that others whom “disrupted” the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting by clapping on Feb. 22 are also on that list. However, the more than 50 other people also protesting were not arrested.
Why were Reza and others not notified that they were banned from the public building? If there is a list that bans people from the Senate building there should be a visible sign on the Senate doors saying, “NO TRESPASSING: SALVADOR REZA.” It should not be an automatic arrest.
State Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, put out a statement last week demanding the names on the list go public. Gallardo should also demand the legality of creating a citizen ban list for public buildings be questioned.
Lawmakers need to be held accountable for their decisions by law — not by their word.
It seems that now additional voices of protesters are treated as a nuisance rather than part of democracy. Senators and other leaders do not want to hear the opposing views; they would rather silence them by banning them.
Wisconsin protesters that have been camping out at their capitol building since Feb. 15, advocating against an anti-union bill, have also been asked by police to leave after a week. Members of the UW Teaching Assistants Association were upset that there is now restricted access to their lawmakers’ offices and public hearing rooms during normal business hours. Police have threatened to arrest any of those who have not left by Sunday night.
If banning peaceful protests from public buildings does not violate the First Amendment, then I don’t know what does. Without the occupation of public buildings, how will voices be heard?
Restricting access in a public hearing room is hypocritical and biased to those who only support legislation and would not see a need to camp in the space.
Banning oppositionists exposes the tyranny that exists within out legislature. If peaceful protest continues to be denied, activists will only push their agenda to get their voices heard by other means.
Reach Justine at jrgarci8@asu.edu
