[NYTr] Free Speech Victory: NYC Settles in Central Park Lawsuit

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[During the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, the
wimpy anti-war liberals played nice, and allowed themselves to be segregated
into a police-controlled ghetto on the West Side Highway for their
"free speech zone" protests.  The same unconstitutional outrage 
occurred in Boston at the Democratic Convention.  In New York, however,
the City and its cops were hauled into court. On January 8, 2008, the
City finally settled. 

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARAB AMERICANS AND THE
ANSWER COALITION.  Links to relevant documents and press articles on
this important civil liberties victory follow.  -NY Transfer]


sent by Carlos Rovira - Jan 9, 2008

Central Park Great Lawn Lawsuit: 

Important Victory for Free Speech Rights
 
Settlement Strikes Down Regulations Banning Mass Assembly Protest;

City Must Now Establish Constitutionally Valid Permitting Scheme for
Protests in Central Park


The Partnership for Civil Justice has announced today the filing in
Court of a landmark settlement agreement with the City of New York that
strikes down key provisions of controversial and unconstitutional
regulations aimed at restricting access to the Great Lawn of Central
Park. The National Council of Arab Americans (NCA) and the A.N.S.W.E.R.
Coalition (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) are the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit. 

The City must now establish a constitutionally valid permitting scheme
for protests in Central Park and must undertake a feasibility study
into the optimum and sustainable use of the Great Lawn and what efforts
can be undertaken to maximize the availability of the lawn for large
events including rallies and demonstrations. 

The settlement not only strikes down the 50,000 person limit on the
Great Lawn -- which was used as the pretext to deny permits during the
RNC -- it opens the door to a massive campaign enlisting all New
Yorkers to insist on the right to maintain the Great Lawn as a public
space available for mass assembly protest.

This significant victory in the courts can be utilized to further
mobilize the people in defense of Free Speech rights. Rather than
acquiesce to the City when it denied permits for mass action during the
RNC the NCA and A.N.S.W.E.R. fought back.

The settlement also requires the city to pay damages to NCA and
A.N.S.W.E.R. for discriminatorily denying us the right to hold a
demonstration on the Great Lawn during the Republican National
Convention in August 2004. It also requires the City to pay attorneys
fees and costs for the litigation.

The litigation was originally brought in advance of the Republican
National Convention (RNC) by the Partnership for Civil Justice (PCJ), a
Washington DC-based public interest law firm, when NCA and A.N.S.W.E.R.
sought to hold a demonstration in support of civil rights and civil
liberties including the targeted Arab and Muslim community. The
demonstration was timed to coincide with the opening of the RNC and was
to be held on August 28, the 41st anniversary of Dr. King's historic
March on Washington, but was blocked by the City.

Other organizations had also been denied permits to stage protest
rallies in the Great Lawn during this period.

After the Republican National Convention concluded, the NCA and the
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition determined that we would continue the litigation
in order to block the effort of Mayor Bloomberg and wealthy and
corporate backers to privatize Central Park, including the Great Lawn,
and make it off limits to mass political assembly, while at the same
time allowing corporate-sponsored, politically approved events.

This three-year long litigation has been hard-fought, and included
depositions of top city officials as well as successful obtainment of
more than 10,000 pages of critical documents including internal emails
and other materials. These documents proved the falsity of the City's
representations as to the basis of the denials for protest permits in
2004. They also revealed that Mayor Bloomberg and his office were
directly involved in political decision-making as to who should have
access to the Great Lawn.

"The lawsuit and today's settlement successfully challenges the
brazenly unconstitutional efforts to bar protests from the Great Lawn,"
states Carl Messineo, a co-founder of the Partnership for Civil
Justice. "The Bloomberg administration, along with the NYC Parks
Department, took concerted actions to illegally block mass assembly
protest during the Republican National Convention in August 2004. The
Arab-American community and anti-war protestors were barred from the
use of Central Park's Great Lawn for mass assembly protests." he
continued.

The litigation filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, National Council of Arab Americans and
the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition v. The City of New York City, et.al.,
04-CV-6602 (WHP) has far reaching consequences not only for New York
but for Free Speech rights in cities throughout the country.

"The lawsuit is not merely about the use of the Great Lawn of Central
Park. It serves as an historic challenge to the privatization of public
space and the ability of corporations to "purchase" our fundamental
rights," states Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder of the PCJ. "Mayor
Bloomberg wanted to ban mass assembly protest from Manhattan during the
Convention and forever after. The Great Lawn, with 13 acres of open
space, has historically been used for the largest mass assembly events
in NYC. We assert that if New York's Great Lawn can be closed off to
political assembly and protest, it will establish a precedent that will
be replicated nationwide. There will be no parkland that will be safe
for the continued use of the Free Speech rights of the people,"
Verheyden-Hilliard emphasized.

While New York barred the use of the Great Lawn for political protests
against policies of the Bush Administration, the Great Lawn has been
the site of many large gatherings in recent years including an American
Online-sponsored rock concert by the Dave Mathews Band that promoted an
AOL product, the Metropolitan Opera, the Philharmonic Orchestra, and
other international celebrations and mass gatherings. The City denied
the permits to the NCA and A.N.S.W.E.R. on the basis that the presence
in Central Park of those intending to gather for civil rights would
"damage the grass."

Through this agreement, NCA and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition retain our
right to continue a legal challenge to any resulting regulations
following the feasibility study that are not constitutionally sound.
The City is obligated to provide notice to the organizations regarding
the feasibility study and any regulatory changes. The organizations are
each receiving $25,000 for the deprivation of the right to hold a
protest on August 28, 2004. Separately, the City is also paying
attorneys' fees and costs for the three year long litigation. The
attorneys on the litigation are Carl Messineo and Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice and Carol A.
Sobel.

To view a copy of the settlement agreement and for more information on
this litigation and other constitutional rights challenges, please
visit the website of the Partnership for Civil Justice
http://www.justiceonline.org/.


                                  ***

Reuters - Jan 8, 2008  7:09 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0852291120080109


N.Y. settles lawsuit that limited Central Park use

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City agreed on Tuesday to settle a
lawsuit that challenged controversial limits imposed on the public use
of Central Park and a cap on the size of crowds at 50,000.

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 by the National Council of Arab
Americans and the ANSWER Coalition, a group that opposes the war in
Iraq, after the city rejected the groups' application to hold a rally
on the Great Lawn in the center of the park during the 2004 Republican
National Convention.

The city said the 250,000 people expected at the rally would have
damaged the grass, which was restored at a cost of $18.2 million in
1997. But demonstrators said the ban on large gatherings violated their
First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly.

"It's a huge free speech victory," Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer
for the Partnership for Civil Justice and a lead attorney on the case.

Under the terms of the settlement, the city has agreed to fund a
feasibility study by a committee of independent experts that will
advise the Parks Department on the "optimal and sustainable use" of the
Great Lawn for large events, the city's law department said in a
statement.

The city has also agreed to make a cash payment of $25,000 to each
organization, and to reimburse legal fees and costs.

"We believe that the settlement of this matter is in the City's best
interests," said Michael Cardozo, the city's lead attorney.

The Great Lawn has been the site of many of the city's largest
gatherings. The late Pope John Paul II held mass for some 125,000
people there in 1995, the late tenor Luciano Pavarotti sang before a
crowd of half a million in 1993 and a concert given by Simon &
Garfunkel in 1981 attracted more than 500,000.

A 1982 anti-nuclear rally at Central Park drew 700,000 people.
[conservatively.... the rally organizers estimated at least a million.
- NY Transfer]


(Reporting by Edith Honan; editing by Michelle Nichols and Mohammad
Zargham)

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

                             ***

The New York Times - Jan 9, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/nyregion/09cnd-lawn.html

Settlement on Use of Central Park’s Great Lawn

By ALAN FEUER

After three years of contentious litigation, the New York City Parks
Department agreed Tuesday to back away from a controversial regulation
to limit public events on the Great Lawn, in the heart of Central Park,
to 50,000 people. The decision to rescind the rule — put in place, the
city said, to protect the lawn and used in an early form to deny
permits to antiwar demonstrators — was hailed by its critics as a
victory for the First Amendment and for the public use of public land.

“It’s an enormous victory for New Yorkers and for everyone who comes to
New York City,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for the
Partnership for Civil Justice, which had challenged the regulation.
“Not only for their free-speech rights, but for their rights to public
space that belongs to the people.”

Enforcement of the rule was temporarily set aside as part of a
settlement agreement with two antiwar groups that Ms.
Verheyden-Hilliard’s group represents and that sued the city after they
were denied a permit to hold a demonstration on the lawn in advance of
the Republican National Convention in 2004. While the rule was not
formally adopted until December 2005, the city had an informal policy
of protecting the lawn in place since 1997, officials said, when it
spent $18.2 million to restore the 13-acre area.

Under the agreement, which staved off a looming federal trial, the city
will now conduct a study to determine “the optimum and sustainable use
of the Great Lawn for large events.” Officials said that current
regulations governing the lawn would remain in effect while the study
is conducted, except that the maximum number of attendees permitted on
the lawn will be up to 75,000 people.

“We believe that the settlement of this matter is in the city’s best
interests,” said Michael A. Cardozo, the city’s Corporation Counsel.
“The study will allow the Parks Department to obtain a recommendation
that will help it determine whether, and to what extent, the Great Lawn
can accommodate large concerts and rallies without significantly
damaging the lawn or impeding its day-to-day use for softball and other
recreational activities.”

When the regulation was officially—and quietly—established, city
officials said that only six events with 5,000 to 50,000 spectators
would be permitted each year on the lawn in order to protect its
fragile 13 acres of Kentucky bluegrass. Of those six event permits,
four were reserved for the Metropolitan Opera and the New York
Philharmonic, whose musical events drew “passive” crowds, officials
said, which did little damage to the lawn.

The move to limit the gatherings was met at once with spirited
criticism from groups who questioned the constitutionality of the
restrictions and who argued that the possibility of damage to the lawn
was no more than a pretext to mute political action. There were those
who said the city was seeking to prevent demonstrations against the
Iraq war and those of a more nostalgic bent who could remember a time
when the Great Lawn was used for Simon and Garfunkel concerts and
large-scale papal masses.

Before the regulation was adopted, there were no explicit limits on the
number of people allowed to gather on the lawn, nor on the number of
gatherings held there. Permission to assemble was granted on a
case-by-case basis with any group of more than 20 requiring a permit.

The lawsuit which led to the agreement was filed in Federal District
Court in Manhattan by the National Council of Arab Americans and the
Answer Coalition, which applied for — and were denied — permission to
stage a rally on the Great Lawn on Aug. 28, 2004, before the Republican
gathering in New York. The judge presiding in the case, William H.
Pauley III, ruled in March that the city was constitutionally permitted
to limit events on the lawn to protect it from damage but had to defend
itself against the specific charge of violating the two groups’ First
Amendment rights by denying them permission to march.

The study, which will be undertaken at the city’s expense, will be
conducted by an independent committee, including at least three experts
in “turf management” and one expert in crowd control, the settlement
agreement says. Upon completion, its report will be sent to the parks
commissioner who will then adopt or not adopt its recommendations.

Should the two plaintiffs in the lawsuit be unsatisfied with the city’s
response to the study, the settlement agreement affords them the right
to reopen the case. The agreement also requires the city to pay each of
the groups $25,000 and reimburse them for $500,000 in attorneys’ costs
and fees.

“The Parks Department has consistently made appropriate decisions to
protect the Great Lawn’s primary function, which is to provide
high-quality green space for active and passive recreation, as well as
to accommodate cultural and political events,” said Adrian Benepe, the
commissioner of parks and recreation. “We welcome the opportunity for
further study.”

                         ***

AP via Staten Island Live - Jan 8, 2008 18:43 ET
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-30/119982930944610.xml&storylist=simetro

Groups say Central Park's lawn may be opened to big rallies

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
The Associated Press	 	

NEW YORK (AP) — Central Park's Great Lawn might again be used for large
public demonstrations rather than solely for events staged with help
from the wealthy or corporations, lawyers for two civil rights groups
said after a settlement with the city was announced Tuesday.

"It's a hands-down total and complete victory," said Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice, a
Washington-based public interest law firm that sued on behalf of the
National Council of Arab Americans and the Act Now to Stop War & End
Racism Coalition.

She said the lawn, which had long hosted large public assemblies on its
13 acres, was limited to city-approved events such as annual free
performances by the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic
and a concert by the Dave Matthews Band in September 2003.

"The lawsuit is not merely about the use of the Great Lawn of Central
Park," she said. "It serves as an historic challenge to the
privatization of public space and the ability of corporations to
purchase our fundamental rights."

The groups accused the city of allowing use of the lawn, which includes
eight softball fields, in a discriminatory fashion after they were
denied a permit to engage in a civil rights rally just before the
Republican National Convention in 2004.

The city began limiting access for large groups to the lawn after
spending $18.2 million in the mid-1990s to restore the area.

The deal announced Tuesday calls for the city to pay for an independent
study to decide if the current 50,000-person limit and other
restrictions can be modified so that large events can be held on the
lawn without causing physical damage to the park or interrupting
recreation.

During the study, the maximum number of people allowed on the lawn will
be raised to 75,000.

The deal also requires the city to pay $25,000 in damages to each of
the groups and the costs of litigation.

The city's law office said it wanted to put the dispute behind it
rather than go through a long legal battle and the expense of a trial.

"The city believes that its current regulations regarding use of the
Great Lawn are lawful and proper and that the parks department properly
denied a permit to the two plaintiff organizations in 2004," a city law
office release said.

City Department of Parks and Recreation Commissioner Adrian Benepe said
the department has "consistently made appropriate decisions to protect
the Great Lawn's primary function, which is to provide high-quality
green space for active and passive recreation as well as to accommodate
cultural and political events."

The deal came after a federal judge last year said city regulations
addressed legitimate concerns by letting the city reject events that
can harm the environment or landscape, be unsuitable for the area,
overlap previously scheduled events or block the enjoyment of the park
by others.

Yet, the judge said there were disputed issues of fact regarding why
the city rejected requests for some permits but accepted others. The
judge said there was evidence supporting the groups' claim that the
city favored other groups.

The National Council of Arab Americans provides legal defense,
education programs and other services to Arab Americans nationwide. The
ANSWER Coalition describes itself as a grassroots group that stages
meetings, protests and educational activities opposing war and racism.

In requesting a permit, the groups in January 2004 told the city they
planned to organize a 75,000-person rally on Aug. 28, 2004, to protest
the GOP convention and to commemorate the anniversary of a 1963 civil
rights march on Washington, D.C.

In June 2004, the parks department denied the permit request. The city
later told the groups that the proposed event would cause significant
damage to the park.