NYCLU and Advocates Demand City Council Reject No-Speech Buffer Zones Proposal

The City Council’s no-speech buffer zone proposals are unnecessary, will violate New Yorkers’ First Amendment rights, and lead to excessive, biased policing

NEW YORK CITY – Today, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), elected officials, religious leaders, and advocates rallied at City Hall, demanding city lawmakers reject Council Speaker Julie Menin and Council Member Eric Dinowitz’s bills (Int. 0001-B and Int. 0175-B) that would encourage the New York Police Department (NYPD) to establish no-speech zones outside of New York City’s houses of worship and educational facilities. A recording of the press conference can be found here.

“The City Council bills are an attack on free speech and a surefire way to stifle constitutionally protected, peaceful political protest,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. “By deploying the NYPD to establish no-speech zones across all five boroughs, these bills will flood our streets with cops for no reason and potentially curtail the hard-fought, vital civil rights protections solidified in the 2024 Payne protest settlement. As the federal government targets, arrests, and even murders ordinary citizens for peaceful protest, New York City lawmakers must defend the First Amendment — yes, even for ideas they don’t like — and reject these ill-advised bills. Stifling New Yorkers’ speech is exactly what Trump and his goons want, and city lawmakers should under no circumstances be actively aiding their authoritarian effort.”

Today’s action comes on the heels of Governor Hochul and other state lawmakers’ growing calls to prohibit protests outside of houses of worship and reproductive healthcare facilities as a way to clamp down on speech and protest. It also comes as the federal government launches increasingly aggressive attacks on protest, free speech, and dissent across the nation, including the crackdown on pro-Palestine protestors; the deployment of thousands of federal troops into U.S. cities following anti-ICE protests; threats of violence against anyone who dissents; and the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

“As a rabbi and Jewish New Yorker, I care about my community’s safety and the safety of everyone in our city,” said Rabbi Barat Ellman of Jews For Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ). “JFREJ strongly supports the notion of houses of worship as sanctuaries for prayer. But legislation that restricts protest undermines the open society we cherish in this city. Protesters may say things that upset other people. That is not the same thing as endangering people or obstructing access. We see far more danger in restricting the right to protest than we do in the presence of the protests these bills look to prevent.”

“Our houses of worship are not asking for this legislation, but they are being used as the justification for it. The Black church in particular has always understood that the public square is sacred ground, and that protest and prayer are not opposites but partners,” said Reverend Stephen A. Green, Senior Pastor of the Greater Allen AME Cathedral of New York.  “The NYPD already has the authority to respond to legitimate threats. What this bill adds is not a new tool for safety, it’s a new mechanism for deciding whose voices are welcome in the public square and whose are not.”

If these bills pass, the NYPD would have 45 days to formulate a plan to establish security perimeters for the City Council and Mayor to review. The final plan would be published 90 days after the bills are enacted and must adhere to the 2024 Payne Protest Settlement, which requires the NYPD to use a tiered system that ensures de-escalation and compliance with the First Amendment for all protests or demonstrations across the five boroughs.

“The ‘security perimeter’ bills being proposed by members of the New York City Council aren’t about safety—they’re about silencing constitutionally protected speech. These bills were prompted by protests against the illegal sale of Palestinian land, and they will undoubtedly target other constitutionally protected speech activities, including on-going organizing against war and genocide,” said Ellis Garey, Attorney Network Organizer at Palestine Legal. “At a time when New York should be a bulwark against the MAGA crackdown on dissent, we call on city council members to vote against this legislation that will exacerbate anti-Palestinian racism, and further chill and criminalize constitutionally protected activities through increased scrutiny and policing of vulnerable communities.”

New York has robust, long-standing laws that already protect people leaving and entering houses of worship or educational facilities. In fact, section 240.70-71 of the state’s Penal Code criminalizes intentionally interfering with another person’s exercise of religion at a house of worship, imposing special penalties on those who physically obstruct someone else’s religious practice. And the rest of New York’s Penal Code already protects every New Yorker from harassment, menacing, assault, or battery wherever they are, including when entering or leaving a house of worship or an educational facility.

“AQE opposes ‘no speech buffer zone bills’ int-175 and 1-A because we believe this legislation will green light the criminalization of students, activists and protestors as they exercise their right to peaceful protest,” said Zakiyah Shaakir-Ansari, Co Executive Director of the Alliance for Quality Education. “The intent of these bills might have been to combat hate but they will not address the daily anti-Black racism and xenophobia that our communities experience. Why? Because the real perpetrators of the hate and acts of violence is White Supremacy. Once you make the NYPD overseer of how New Yorkers can peacefully protest, history tells us that harm will come to Black, brown, Muslim and immigrant communities. These bills will make NYC a place where no one is safe to exercise their freedom of speech. That’s not the NYC we know, the city that prides itself on being welcoming to all.”

“PAL-Awda calls to reject censorship zone bills that would infringe our free speech rights to protest real estate sales events of stolen Palestinian land to which admission is restricted by religion and political viewpoint, in violation of multiple US and NY fair housing and civil rights laws,” said Leena Widdi of PAL-Awda. “Speaker Menin’s proposed legislation would allow promoters of these illegal sales to shield themselves from protest simply by holding them at houses of worship. Laws like these are directly intended to discriminate against pro-Palestinian views.”

“These security perimeter bills are a dangerous attack on constitutionally protected speech and association for all New Yorkers,” said Brad Parker, Associate Director of Policy at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “It is shameful these are being fast-tracked in a context where anti-Palestinian racism has resulted in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity in support of Palestinian human rights being treated as a security concern. These bills will undoubtedly result in the criminalization of First Amendment protected protest and perpetuate constitutional violations against individuals with a disfavored viewpoint.”

“While the bully in the White House is starting wars, dismantling democracy, and kidnapping children, NYC’s leaders have decided their top legislative priority is directing more resources toward censorship. For years, they’ve tried to combat hate by siphoning money from our children’s education to fund state surveillance of students. The data is clear–this strategy has epically failed,”  says Alaina Daniels, Executive Director of Trans formative Schools. “Handing armed guards the authority to decide whose speech is allowed and whose should be silenced will not make New Yorkers safer. Our youth need science teachers, mental health counselors, and cozy libraries—not more interactions with law enforcement.”

“As a Black, queer activist, I know how often Black, Brown, and LGBTQIA2S+ Americans have had to protest against the actions and policies of powerful educational, religious, and medical institutions,” said Jay W. Walker, President of Gays Against Guns. “In February, Speaker Julie Menin was quick to glom onto the controversy around the rainbow flag being removed from the Stonewall National Monument. But with these bills, she spits on the history of struggle that flag represents. Pretending that the state needs to shield powerful – and tax-exempt – institutions, with long histories and current instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia from accountability for policies contrary to the public good, is shameful.”