To the Editor:
I have just returned home from the Five Corners area, where I planned to join the demonstration. I arrived at 4:48 and, assuming the Post Office would close at 5 pm, I parked my car in the Post Office lot. Within a few minutes, the Postmaster came out and told the group that any demonstrators’ cars parked in the lot needed to be moved because there are “no protesters allowed on federal property.” (Notably, she didn’t say the lot was for Post Office business only.)
If what she said was accurate, she needs to let Donald Trump know. After all, he called the assault on the Capitol by masses of people a “peaceful protest.”
I’m curious, what is the law on this matter? I would like to know.
Bari Boyer
Edgartown
The Postmaster needs to learn about the Term “traditional public forum ” and consult with the FPS on who the enforcement authority is on Postal Property. It sounds like someone is having a power trip
In the spring of 2003 I participated in protests of the threatened US invasion of Iraq in front of the Falmouth Post Office. The postmaster told our group that we had to leave the property. I immediately called the Mass. ACLU in Boston and asked them what our rights were.
The ACLU representative told me that we have every right to protest/demonstrate on federal property, as long as we don’t impede access to the post office.
I informed the postmaster of this and that was, basically, the end of it. We continued to protest every Saturday for months. (Our protests didn’t stop the invasion, unfortunately, and unfortunately we were right: the Bush administration was lying through its teeth about WMD in Iraq. )
Hearsay proves nothing, Katherine. People get on here all the time with claims of what somebody supposedly told them, usually to promote their personal political agenda. I’ve seen it under nearly every article on environmental issues. Wouldn’t it be easier and more believable to quote and link the source to see how reliable your story is? Maybe it’s accurate and complete, maybe not.
And btw, the ACLU has come under fire recently for good reason, so perhaps not the best source one way or the other for this article anyway. As an example, the protection of hate speech that incites violence is not protected under our “free speech” laws, as the deserved harsh criticisms of the ACLU‘s stance on this matter have shown us. The takeaway is that the ACLU’s is biased.
Some people do regularly make untrue claims in this paper’s comments based on a political bias of hating one or another people, place, or party. These claims are simply not reliable tellers of truth. That’s why a linked source is preferred.
I’m curious as to why peaceful protesters need to use parking restrictions, valid or not, (we still don’t know) to express their feelings for the President.