Making protesters pay is a bad idea, should be rejected

If the National Park Service ignores a tide of public opposition and goes forward with a proposal to make Americans pay for the right to protest in the capital and restrict where they can do it, Congress should act to prevent it.

The ideas being floated — banning protests on all but a 5-foot sliver of the White House sidewalk, making demonstrators pay for things like law enforcement, trash cleanup and replanting of grass and limiting spontaneous protests — most likely would be struck down as unconstitutional. But the idea is so awful, so un-American that lawmakers should spare the nation the spectacle and expense of a court fight.

We hope there aren’t many outside of President Donald Trump’s inner circle who would support this affront to a right that has distinguished the U.S. since its founding. Yes, Trump’s policies and his assault on the government he is sworn to run have sparked more and bigger protests than previous presidencies.

And yes, to a disappointing extent, opponents ranging from struggling citizens to U.S. senators have responded to his divisive language and tactics with ugly language and actions of their own.

But let’s not conflate that with “mob rule” that should be suppressed. None of the recent nastiness in Washington detracts from the need to protect fundamental free-speech rights.

The National Mall, the White House sidewalk and other D.C. locations are iconic forums for public expression. Preserving the ability of Americans to gather there and peacefully protest is important enough that it is an appropriate expense for taxpayers to bear.

That’s especially true when considering how readily Trump would spend tax dollars for any public spectacle meant to glorify rather than criticize him.

Remember the grand military parade he wanted to stage? He was eager to spend an estimated $10 million-$30 million to transport a load of military hardware to be paraded past him down Pennsylvania Avenue. Fortunately, it turned out that the real cost was likely to be much more, enough for him to give up on or at least postpone this unseemly idea.

As for the Park Service’s budget squeeze — the ostensible justification for making protests too expensive for many to stage — that’s a different outrage. For years, Congress has underfunded the agency and its operation of the national parks, disrespecting and endangering the country’s priceless natural heritage.

To turn around and use that politician-imposed poverty as an excuse to put a price tag on lawful exercise of the First Amendment must be somebody’s idea of a sick joke.

We recognize that many in Congress support policies of the president that we oppose. He may, unfortunately in our view, find enough support to make progress on his agenda on trade or immigration or environmental deregulation. We know many even approve of his disparagement of the press.

But we trust that few would agree that America shouldn’t tolerate peaceful dissent in its capital city. The president has made clear with his words and actions that he does not accept or even understand the bedrock right of citizens to oppose and disagree with him publicly, nor the responsibility of the government to protect that right.

If he instructs the Park Service to impose the suggested new rules, we pray Congress will help educate him by delivering a real-life civics lesson on the First Amendment and checks and balances.