Second, the regulation meets an important governmental
interst. Camping in the Memorial core "would deprive other park
visitors including demonstrating park visitors, of use of this
nationally significant space." Administrative Policy Statements, 47
F.R. 24301, 24302 and 47 F.R. 24304, 24305 (June 4, 1982). Park
resources would be seriously damaged. Sanitation problems would be
created, and law enforcement resources would be
12
taxed. Id. The purpose of this regulation is to protect the park land
for the use of the many while satisfying, if possible, the needs of
the few. Even if the court viewed as a form of expression the use of
the park area as a living accomodation (which the government does not
accept) "[t]he privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the
streets and parks for communication of views on national questions
may be regulated in the interest of all." Hague, supra, at 516.
The regulation also satisfies the third position of the
O'Brien test. The governmental interest in promulgating the
regulation is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. The
governmental interest is to protect the park grounds for the benefit
of all the people. As the Policy Statement points out, camping in
such grounds would interfere with others who.may wish to use the
grounds. Policy Statements, supra, at 24302 and 24305. The
regulations do not suppress free expression. Only the use of the
land as an actual living accomodation is prohibited.
In addition, the regulation does not prohibit the use of
tents and similar structures to provide support or logistical
services to demonstrators. The regulation would also allow the use of
tents or even the erection of symbolic cities as a means by which a
group can convey its message.
13
Finally, the regulation satisfies the fourth requirement.
The incidental restriction alleged here is the inability of
demonstrators to use park areas for their living accomodation
purposes. Even if it is argued that defendants are attempting to
convey a message by their campingr the National Park Service allows
symbolic displays that would allow expression of a message. These
symbolic displays effectively communicate a message without taxing
the park areas to the same extent that the actual use of the park
land as a living accomodation does. Assuming arguendo the use of park
land as a living accomodation expresses something, the same message
can be communicated by symbolic displays, thus satisfying the needs
of individuals to express their views while protecting the park areas
for the common good.
WHEREFORE, we respectfully submit that defendants' motion
to dismiss the indictment should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH E. DIGENOVA
United State Attorney
BY:
(signed)
WILLIAM J. O'MALLEY, JR.
Assistant United States Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have served a copy of the foregoing
Government's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Information on this 5th day of April, 1984, upon defendants by
mailing copies thereof to their attorneys below:
Richard S. Stern, Esquire
419 7th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Attorney for William Thomas
David A. Reiser, Esquire
605 G Street, N.W.
Third Floor
Washington, D.C. 20001
Attorney for Concepcion Picciotto
(signed)
WILLIAM J. O'MALLEY JR
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. District Courthouse
Room 3836
Washignton, D.C. 20001
633-5000
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park