The state legislature is considering a law proposed by Gov. Scott Walker this week that would require protesters to give three days prior notice and make them pay for security when protesting on the Capitol. This law is a cheap tactic to keep the governor out of the way of scrutiny, and it is a limit on free speech.

The timing of this measure should be held suspect. Walker is among the most protested figures in American politics and is likely to become only the third governor over the past century to face a recall election. This is a clear and blatant move to keep protestors off his back: Legislation is totally unnecessary to clear the five protesters left at the Capitol.

In my first visit to the Capitol last week I saw few protesters. They were being loud and obnoxious, but they weren’t causing any harm, and they certainly were not disrupting the business of the building. I disagreed with their message – which I believe was one of a Walker conspiracy theory – but the Capitol is a legitimate and reasonable forum to vent their beliefs.

Some of the most meaningful assemblies in history are those which happen spontaneously. When the news was released that Osama bin Laden had been killed in May, many students in the D.C. area flocked to the Capitol. During the Vietnam War the protesters – who were mostly spontaneous – had a profound effect on President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was so haunted by the war that he refused to run for reelection.

The measure limits First Amendment rights and forces free speech to go through a bureaucratic protest permit process. Overall, this is not good for the state or for individual rights.

Walker faced the scrutiny of large-scale protests in the Capitol building last year, and consequently he is likely to face a recall. His motive for the measure requiring permits to protest in the Capitol is likely to limit the scrutiny he will face during the upcoming election season.

Protesters’ messages are not always correct, and in fact they are often wrong. One needs only to travel to the nation’s capital to see evidence of protesters’ misguided messages. Some say the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 were an inside job, some say the moon landing was a farce, some say Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster, and they have been laughed to the bottom of the political dialogue. Those who do not make good points will not be seen as credible.

Nonetheless, even these conspiracy theorists have a rightful place in our political dialogue. In some ways they are watchmen, so when our government does do something wrong people will realize it. Limiting their forum greatly hinders democracy, and that is exactly what Walker is doing with this piece of legislation. The Capitol is supposed to be the center of political discussion in the state, and this law undermines that.

One thing in this bill that may be legitimate is that protesters would have to pay for any security costs they accrue. It is a reasonable point to say that the state should not be sponsoring their political message (or any political message for that matter) by giving them the Capitol security on the taxpayer dime. This measure should be debated and is a more complicated issue.

Forcing protesters who are expressing their First Amendment right of peaceful assembly and speech to get permits three days before their protest undermines those rights.

The measure is a restriction on our rights, and nothing more than a cheap electoral tactic. I hope to see plenty of unlicensed protesters down at the Capitol trying to stop this bill.

Spencer Lindsay ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in political science.