Daily Herald opinion: Free speech and election politics: Chilling-sounding 'First Amendment Zones' pose a legitimate, not insurmountable, challenge for Kane County board

Before wading into the concept of “First Amendment Zones” suddenly roiling Kane County government, it is important to bale out some of the murky election year politics into which the issue has been plunged.

Yes, the term “First Amendment Zone” carries more than a faint Orwellian whiff, and, yes, at first blush, the idea that Kane County Board Chairwoman Corinne Pierog had one set up after she was handed a campaign brochure for her election opponent at the entrance of the county government center suggests a chilling threat to free speech rights.

But, important distinctions need to be examined as the County Board prepares to take up the issue, possibly as soon as Wednesday.

First, note that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit officials from prohibiting certain free-speech activities in certain areas, and the Illinois Municipal Code specifically states that “The corporate authorities of each municipality may regulate and prohibit the exhibition or carrying of banners, signs, placards, advertisements, or handbills on the sidewalks, streets, or other municipal property.”

Indeed, in various parts of the country, people promoting political, religious and social causes are prohibited from all sorts of solicitations at locations ranging from airport terminals to city sidewalks and more.

So, the sudden constitutional chest beating from partisans upset about Republican activists who were required to move away from the entrance of the Kane County government center last week carries an aroma more of the opportunistic mud of election politics than of urgent First Amendment protectionism.

One wonders, for example, how loud their cries in defense of free speech would be if the situation involved Democrats pushed back for passing out political pamphlets or abortion-rights activists moved for interrupting people as they entered the government building or any other liberal cause interfering with individuals coming to the center for business with the treasurer, clerk or other office.

But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. The right of free speech is fundamental to our democracy and needs to be protected.

Sorting out the specific timing of events related to the establishment of the so-called “free-speech zones” at the Kane County center is no simple task, but the primary issues are clear. Are the zones appropriate? And, who has the authority to decide if, when or where they should be established?

Republicans raising the complaints contend the responsibility should rest with the sheriff. The sheriff says it should be the County Board. Making an affirmative declaration is the task presumably now facing the board.

It may not be easy for the members to separate themselves from the immediate politics of the issue. Republicans seeking to boost their influence in the majority-Democratic county government seem unlikely to yield a point that has given them an opportunity to brandish the optics of free speech. Democrats on the board seem likely to continue to press the position that Pierog has already staked out regarding safety and interference.

In the heat of an election campaign, no one wants to be seen as soft on free speech, of course. Nor should anyone dismiss the importance of upholding the rights of citizens to speak out on behalf of the candidates of their choice or any other issue. But if the politicians can be sincere, they will work calmly together toward an ultimate decision that balances the potential for disruption and intimidation against the fundamental right of free speech, recognizing that if that right is to be affected, it should be by only the least-restrictive measures.

And, it should be based on past experience along with advice from county safety officials, including the state’s attorney and sheriff.

Protecting a free-for-all in front of the county building in the name of First Amendment rights surely cannot be allowed. Yet, a single person occasionally and temporarily passing out pamphlets hardly suggests such an environment is imminent.

The real issue here isn’t just whether that lone activity should be prohibited but whether there’s evidence the situation has become or has the potential to become more disruptive or intimidating. Responding to the issue in that context need not be politically contentious.

It will be instructive to see whether it becomes so at the Kane County Board.