Stifling protest.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Protest is an American tradition that dates back to the Boston Tea Party. For well over two centuries, it has offered citizens an extraordinary opportunity for expression - and for changing the very course of history.

Public protests against this nation's fugitive slave laws, which required the return of escaped slaves to their masters, helped galvanize abolitionist forces before the Civil War. During the 1960s, civil rights protests played a critical role in forcing an end to racial segregation laws in the South. More recently, protests helped end a disastrous war in Vietnam.

The Bill of Rights protects protests, as freedom of expression, from government intrusion. Yet Attorney General John Ashcroft apparently sees constitutional protections as nuisances to be circumvented. Why else would FBI agents have been dispatched to conduct intimidating interviews with political protesters across the country before the recent Democratic convention in Boston and the upcoming Republican political convention in New York City?

The Department of Justice insists that the interviews were intended to prevent violence and other illegal activities before they occurred at the political conventions. "Criminal behavior isn't covered by the First Amendment," an FBI spokesman declared.

Well, hold on a moment. The FBI wasn't investigating criminal behavior; it was merely trying to prevent criminal behavior from happening. There's a big difference - big enough for at least one FBI employee to tell The New York Times that the agent visits to possible protesters crossed the line into harassment and intimidation.

On Friday, Ashcroft defended the FBI interviews, saying they included questioning of protesters the agency believed were plotting to firebomb media vehicles at the Democratic convention - or might have known about such plots. That's a bit hard to swallow, given that protesters interviewed by the FBI have said the agents never asked them about any such plot.

To the contrary, the protesters said the door-knocking campaign seemed expressly designed to intimidate them from joining convention protesters in Boston and New York. One woman, who was visited by six - count 'em, six - FBI agents, told the Times that the agents were trying "to let us know that 'hey, we're watching you.' '

The FBI's interviews are part of a larger and misguided post-Sept. 11 effort to squelch protest in this country. At the Democratic convention, protesters were confined to isolated "free-speech zones" that were out of sight of most delegates. In New York City, officials have refused to allow an anti-war demonstration in Central Park during the Republican convention, a move that hopefully will be reversed by the courts.

Such measures go far beyond legitimate security precautions that can and should be taken to prevent violent acts, even possible acts of terrorism. Harsh restrictions at the political conventions and the FBI's interviews of protesters run starkly counter to the Constitution's core guarantee of free expression and the right of all citizens to stand up and protest for what they believe is right.