Washington Post editorial "A victory for free speech on the Mall" calls the total withdrawal of proposed anti-protest regulations: "a full retreat by the Trump administration and, more important, a victory for the First Amendment." "Their plan to suppress protest,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, “was met with the very force it was trying to suppress."
Courthouse News Service: Trump Planning Tough New Rules for Protests Near White House. “Nearly all are registering outrage and opposition to this radical rollback of free speech rights. We view this as a full scale attack on constitutional rights, that’s why we’ve launched a campaign to defend them.” — Carl Messineo, PCJF Legal Director Read more
The Hill: Trump administration proposes tough rules on protests. “There’s never been such a large effort at rewriting these regulations. I don’t think there can be any question that these revisions will have the intent and certainly the effect of stifling the ability of the public to protest.” — Mara Verheyden-Hilliard Read more
WJLA (DC): New restrictions proposed for protests near the White House and National Mall “If you think about the 1963 March on Washington at the Lincoln Memorial, if these rules had been in place then, the government would have been able to assess massive costs on the organizers and stopped them from being able to have that important moment. All you have to do is think about what our society would be like if that speech had been stifled.” — Mara Verheyden-Hilliard Read more
“When you think about petitioning your government for redress of grievances, this is the nation’s capital -- this is where you come to do it. And now you have the Trump administration that is not only engaging in extreme rhetoric against demonstrators and suggesting that protests should be illegal,” but “taking concrete actions to suppress dissent and suppress free speech.” — Mara Verheyden-Hilliard in Bloomberg News. Click here to read the full article. Read more