ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Miami-Dade Police Restrictions on Animal Rights Advocates at Miami Seaquarium
Police policy barring advocates from using county sidewalks outside marine mammal park violates First Amendment rights; Lawsuit filed on behalf of 3 animal rights advocates, including 1 arrested for standing on public sidewalk holding protest sign
MIAMI, FL – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida filed a lawsuit challenging a policy of the Miami-Dade Police Department that limits demonstrators’ access to over 40 feet of the public sidewalk outside the Miami Seaquarium. The complaint, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, states that the “red zone” policy violates the animal rights advocates’ rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Miami Seaquarium, a 60-year-old oceanarium and zoological park, is built on Miami-Dade County land on Virginia Key in Biscayne Bay along the Rickenbacker Causeway, and is accessible by county sidewalks. The park has drawn increasing attention in recent years from advocates protesting the treatment of “Lolita,” an orca held at the Seaquarium. Beginning in the summer of 2014, the Miami Dade Police Department (MDPD) began circulating maps designating the area of sidewalk in front of the Seaquarium a “red zone,” where advocates are not permitted to stand.
Because of the “red zone,” advocates must stand far back from the entrance and exit on sections of the sidewalk designated as a “green zone,” where they are not as visible or audible to Seaquarium visitors, most of whom enter the Seaquarium by car. From the “green zone,” advocates are unable to talk to Seaquarium visitors or distribute leaflets to visitors, significantly reducing their ability to share their message.
“This is about as obvious a violation of free expression as there can be,” stated ACLU of Florida Staff Attorney Shalini Goel Agarwal. “MDPD’s red zone prevents advocates from engaging in normal conversation with Seaquarium visitors about animal rights and eliminates their ability to hand leaflets to the visitors—both historically protected forms of speech—on a long stretch of the public sidewalk—a historically protected place for the free exchange of ideas. The role of police isn’t to minimize the impact of unpopular opinions, but to keep people safe and to ensure that their rights are being protected. The ‘red zone’ policy at the Miami Seaquarium clearly violates the rights of those advocating for the animals.”
The complaint was filed on behalf of three South Floridians who have been told by police to vacate the “red zone” —Steven Bagenski, Gilda Cummings, and Jeff Geragi. All three have been ordered by police to move out of the “red zone” at one or more demonstrations. Cummings and Geragi have been prohibited from giving leaflets to visitors, whether in the “red zone” or in the “green zone”. On August 31, 2014, Bagenski was arrested and detained for 13 hours for standing on the sidewalk in the “red zone” a few feet away from the entrance driveway while holding a protest sign.
“I was shocked by the whole situation and really taken aback by the arrest,” stated Bagenski, a recently-retired law enforcement officer with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “I really feel that I have a right to protest on a public sidewalk, and the police shouldn’t be trampling the rights of the public. As a former law enforcement officer, I am hoping to send a message to the police officers that they are there to protect the public and protect their rights, and I don’t feel that that happened in this instance.”
The lawsuit names Miami-Dade County, MDPD Director J.D. Patterson, and MDPD Officer John Alexander Jr. – the officer who arrested Mr. Bagenski -- as defendants, and states that the creation and enforcement of the “red zone” policy has violated demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.
Photos and bios of the plaintiffs are available here:
An HD video statement by plaintiff Steven Bagenski is available upon request.
A copy of the complaint filed today is available here:
A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction filed today is available here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.