S.F. Leaders Vow Fight to Stop Far-Right Rally, National Park Service Solicits Opinions

Crissy Field, part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, as seen in May 2016. (Olivia Allen-Price/KQED)

Update, 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 15:

The National Park service is soliciting opinions on a right-wing group’s planned rally on federal land in San Francisco later this month, according to a statement Wednesday evening from the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s acting superintendent.

The possibility that federal officials would allow the group Patriot Prayer to host a rally likely to draw armed militias and white nationalist groups alarmed San Francisco city leaders — as well as state and national representatives — in the wake of a deadly attack Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mayor Ed Lee sent a letter to Golden Gate National Recreation Area Acting Director Cicely Muldoon on Tuesday criticizing what he believed to be the National Park Service’s decision to permit the rally.

Muldoon said in a statement Wednesday that a final determination on the permit would be made by the end of next week, one day before the planned Aug. 26 rally.

“Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the U.S. Park Police are closely coordinating with other federal, state and local agencies to ensure a robust plan is in place before we issue a final permit,” Muldoon’s statement says.

The statement appears to indicate what some legal experts said about the event: Denying or revoking the permit might be illegal.

“Our highest priority is to ensure public safety, while honoring our obligation to uphold one of our nation’s most cherished Constitutional rights, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech,” Muldoon’s statement says. “We are guided by the Constitution, the law, longstanding court precedent, and National Park Service policy, which tells us we must be deliberative and not preemptive in our decisions related to First Amendment gatherings.”

But one usual champion of even disturbing or repugnant demonstrations of free speech said in a statement Wednesday that “white supremacist violence is not free speech.”

Three branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, constituting the national civil rights organization’s representation in California, condemned some common tactics of white nationalist and white supremacist groups masked in the guise of “free speech.”

“[T]he ACLU of California fully supports the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to peacefully assemble,” the statement from directors ACLU’s Northern California, Southern California and San Diego chapters says. “If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution. The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.”

The ACLU of California is reviewing requests for help “on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence.”

The National Park Service directs “anyone interested in expressing their opinion” to send an email to goga_1st_amendment@nps.gov.

Original Post, Tuesday, Aug. 14:

San Francisco city officials are united in their opposition to a right-wing rally planned on federal land near the Golden Gate Bridge later this month, and they’re hurling criticism at the National Park Service for reportedly issuing a permit to the event’s organizers.

Portland-based “Patriot Prayer,” which is promoting an Aug. 26 “Freedom Rally” at Crissy Field, says it’s not a white supremacist or white nationalist organization. But the group has often rallied with militias and unequivocal white nationalists at other events around the country.

“We are not welcoming this group into San Francisco to promote hate,” Mayor Ed Lee said at a press conference Tuesday announcing the city’s opposition to the rally. “We think that the National Park Service, without adequate evaluation and conditions, would do just that and would then, I think, increase opportunities for violence in our city and on the shores of federal property.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco representatives in the state Legislature on Tuesday also announced their opposition to the rally.

The National Park Service, which oversees the Golden Gate National Recreation Area that includes Crissy Field, did not respond to request for comment. It’s unclear whether the service was aware of a letter Lee and other city leaders sent Tuesday afternoon that says San Francisco officials are “outraged with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s (GGNRA) decision to grant an event permit to Patriot Prayer on August 26 without proper planning and resources, given the public safety concerns.”

“To say that we are outraged is an understatement,” Board of Supervisors President London Breed said. “We will do everything that we can to stop you from being in San Francisco. We don’t want to see our city torn apart because of the hate and the violence that you continue to promote all over the country.”

Despite the strong rhetoric, opponents of the rally are likely on shaky legal ground, according to Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor specializing in First Amendment issues.

In places presumed to be public forums, like the park where Patriot Prayer plans to rally, the government can impose only “content-neutral restrictions, such as requiring some notice in advance so they can provide adequate protection,” Volokh said in an interview. “But those have to be content neutral. You can’t have one rule for Black Lives Matter protesters, one rule for animal rights protesters and another rule for white supremacist protesters.”

But though they’re stopping short of a legal threat at this point, San Francisco officials opposed to the rally are using the language of a legal argument. They’re saying Patriot Prayer and affiliated groups are likely to incite violence — and incitement is a well-established legal exception to the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

“We are a city of tolerance. We do enjoy free speech, but I suggest to you there is a difference between free speech and hate speech with the intent of causing violence,” Lee said. “People are coming here to commit violence, not to have an academic dialogue, not to have a fire[side] chat on differences of opinion. They’re coming here to promote violence. They’re aiming their guns at our people, and we’re going to stop them.”

Law professor Volokh said it would likely be more difficult for the National Park Service to revoke a permit, rather than reject or impose conditions before it was issued.

“Generally speaking, once the government issues a permit and then cancels it, there’s a pretty strong inference that it’s canceling it because of the viewpoint of the speakers,” he said. “That is unconstitutional.”

San Francisco Police Chief William Scott said he is trying to coordinate a law enforcement response with the National Park Service. He said SFPD is unlikely to set up a perimeter and allow far-right and far-left protesters to brawl — an approach taken in other cities.

“Our message is clear: Violence will not be tolerated in any form,” Scott said. But he acknowledged that SFPD won’t be able to do anything about the event at Crissy Field unless the National Park Service asks the department for help — a process called “mutual aid.”

“This permit has been granted without the necessary contingencies to protect the safety of the public and with the expectation that the City and County of San Francisco will expend our resources to diffuse the situation,” the city’s letter to the National Park Service says. “Furthermore, the permit was granted without adequate time to prepare the multi-agency response that will be required.”

Lee used another legalism in describing the threat of the protest — this one from a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that helped to define when free speech edges too close to triggering harm and loses its protection.

“We believe that without these conditions it’ll be like yelling fire in a crowded theater, that people will be placed in danger, and we don’t want that to happen in our city,” Lee said. “Unless they [the National Park Service] are totally ignorant of the kinds of things that have happened recently across the country, and particularly in Charlottesville, then they’re playing with fire.”

Vinnee Tong and Tara Siler of KQED News contributed to this report.

S.F. Leaders Vow Fight to Stop Far-Right Rally, National Park Service Solicits Opinions 18 August,2017Alex Emslie

  • Daniel

    If you don’t like the message, don’t go to the park on the day of the event. People have free will if they want to use it. If the neo-whatever wants to hold a rally, let them, ignore them and they will go away. If they start breaking stuff, shut them down. This is not hard.

    • Curious

      It’s the left wing attackers with masks on that cause the violence.

  • pjkrupka

    I share Daniel’s main point – don’t like, don’t listen. Sounds easy, but it’s not in my experience.

    Anyway, what if nobody showed up and coincidental passersby ignored the rally?

    My hackles started stiffening when I heard about this, but I decided to resist the urge to engage. I have better things to do.

  • actandurg

    Agree Daniel.
    Well said.

  • Bob Aho

    Mayor Lee: “Furthermore, the permit was granted without adequate time to prepare the multi-agency response that will be required.”
    OK, then Governor Brown should use this as an opportunity to mobilize a couple of companies of the California National Guard. Call it disaster preparedness training. Don’t need to interact with the prayer vigil participants, simply perform the exercises they would in the event of a disaster. If the various private parties decide to engage in dangerous activities, well then, there just happen to be some highly trained and competent personnel nearby who can easily pivot from training exercise to performance of required duties. I would hope that with the knowledge that “daddy” is watching, the children would play nice.

  • NJT

    What about freedom of speech? I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of the rallys and protests held in the Bay Area which are frequently extremist in their own right but I think all our citizens (and non-citizens fairly frequently as well in San Francisco) have the right to gather and speak their minds. San Francisco has become undemocratic in its extreme liberalism. You can’t let some groups protest and, on occasion riot, as happened several times when I worked in Oakland, and then shut other groups down before they begin just because some powers that be decided they don’t like the message.

  • Curious

    Why does the left hate free speech?

    • VictorEsp

      Lee is just posturing. He knows he cant stop free speech, especially if the organizer is on record saying he wants a peaceful assembly free of weapons and absent of calls for violence. Those annoying Westboro baptist people come into SF all the time.

    • Kurt thialfad

      Because they are haters.

  • Skip Conrad

    This outright censorship. Shame on you Mayor Lee.

  • John Sarsfield

    What guns Mr. Mayor? There is no open carry of firearms allowed in California, therefore they will not be armed. Or maybe, you just don’t want them to speak.

  • Kurt thialfad

    The mayor’s efforts to block free speech will ‘only make matters worse.

    • Jose Lopez

      he is trying to stop violence not free speech can’t you see that

  • Newsygirl

    JUST STAY AWAY. If they come, there will be nobody to hear, see, or acknowledge their terrible hate rhetoric. No one should go out to Chrissy Field that day. If they don’t have anyone to fight, they will lose. It’s the ONLY way to beat them at their own game.

    • deb

      “hate rhetoric”? You mean they don’t agree with you?

    • Jose Lopez

      evenbbetter you ate so right

    • Jose Lopez

      Even betterYou are so right if only people would just grow up and stop acting kids

  • David DiLuzio

    Someone please show me in the US Constitution where the reference to this nonsensicle expression “hate speech” appears..The ONLY speech mentioned is free speech…
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

  • deb

    “Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer and the organizer of the rally, said he denounced racism and wouldn’t allow any extremists into his event. The permit approval, Gibson said Tuesday, was a sign that “the First Amendment will be respected.”
    Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate groups does not list Patriot Prayer as such, nor is Gibson considered an extremist by the advocacy center;
    In fact, the Law Center reported that at the most recent Patriot Prayer event, Gibson shouted from the stage “F*** white supremacists! F*** neo-Nazis!”
    Under the conditions of the rally permit, no guns, ammunition, helmets or backpacks will be allowed on site;
    On its Facebook page, Patriot Prayer says its group “is about using the power of love and prayer to fight the corruption both in the government and citizen levels that seek to gain power through division and deception.”

    What is hateful about this? Millennial snowflakes are encouraged to be offended by the slightest little things, but half the country is labelled racist and white supremacists simply because we disagree with the Left. This is deeply offensive to me. I don’t hate anyone, am not a racist nor a white supremacist, and I don’t know anyone who is any of those things.

Author

Alex Emslie

Alex Emslie is a criminal justice reporter at KQED. He covers policing policy, crime and the courts.

He left Colorado and a career as a carpenter in 2008 to study journalism at City College of San Francisco. He then graduated from San Francisco State University’s journalism program with a minor in criminal justice studies. Prior to joining KQED in 2013, Alex freelanced for various news outlets including the Huffington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner and Bay Guardian.

Alex is proud of his work at KQED on a spike in fatal officer-involved shootings in Vallejo, which uncovered that a single officer shot and killed three suspects over the course of five months. Alex’s work with a team at KQED on police encounters with people in psychiatric crisis was cited in amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court. He received the Northern California Society of Professional Journalists Best Scoop award in 2015 for exposing a series of bigoted text messages swapped by San Francisco police officers. He was honored with 2010 San Francisco Peninsula Press Club and California Newspaper Publishers Association awards for breaking news reporting on the trial following the shooting of Oscar Grant. Email: aemslie@kqed.org. Twitter: @SFNewsReporter.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor