Regulations vs. rights
By JIM BUTLER
The 15 persons speaking last week against proposed permits for demonstrations/protests on England Authority properties did so under exactly what they oppose — curbs on freedom of speech.
The speakers, about evenly split between Rapides residents and persons from other areas, stressed their 1st Amendment right of expression while doing so under an imposed time limit. No one spoke in favor of the proposal.
England Authority policy restricts any comment from the audience to three minutes per person and confines it to the specific matter before the panel.
That is the general framework of public engagement at most public body meetings.
The Authority proposes to create a permitting system for groups of five or more wishing to hold an organized event.
That essentially restricts “free” speech to when and where, but not what.
Permits, cost as yet to be determined, could not be denied by the executive director based on the cause, point of view, or politics of the applicant. Any denial could be appealed to the Authority.
Those speaking last week think the proposal infringes on their rights and is an effort to discourage disagreement with Authority decisions.
Several tried also to take issue with a self-deporting illegal alien family detention facility planned at the former airbase but were channeled by the chair back to the resolution in play.
One citizen chastised the Authority for putting revenue over compassion.
To date, and likely into the future, England officials have not publicly expressed viewpoints on the detention-deportation issue.
In a sense the opponents are correct – the Airpark relies on rent and lease revenues for the General Fund (current year non-aviation budgeted total is $10.4 million) to help pay operating expenses.
The entity is self-sustaining, as it has been for 30 years, with no dedicated public financing.
The proposal will be up for discussion and a vote on adoption at the panel’s August meeting.