By Anthony Ha

THE CITY OF Sunnyvale may soon force activists to foot the bill for security at an antiwar demonstration. Aerospace corporation and weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin is asking that protesters arrested during an April 22 demonstration at the company's Sunnyvale facilities pay $15,000 for extra security costs.

The activists and their lawyers argue that the case could set a dangerous precedent by placing a huge price tag on free speech, while the company and the Santa Clara County district attorney counter that protesters need to pay for breaking the law.

"There should not be a price attached to the exercise of the First Amendment," said Riva Enteen, program director for the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, which found attorneys for many of the demonstrators. "It's outrageous as a concept that protesters would have to pay for private security costs for the target of their protests."

The issue first arose at the sentencing hearing of Mallory Moser, the only arrestee to stand trial so far. After Moser was found guilty of obstructing traffic – a misdemeanor – Lockheed filed a "victim statement" asking the protesters to cover $26,000 in lawyers' fees and $15,000 in security charges. Although the judge dismissed the request for legal fees, Moser had to pay $600 for Lockheed's security.

"Clearly, we're advocates of free speech and the rights of citizens to express themselves," said Charles Manor, a Lockheed spokesperson. "The issue is the cost for extra security that we incurred."

He noted that although the extra security forces did not play a role in arresting the protesters, who blocked three of the entrances to the Lockheed complex, "they were there to protect [Lockheed] property and employees." Manor also emphasized that Lockheed has not filed a lawsuit seeking restitution from the protesters but is "simply being responsive to the legal system."

Lawyers for the other 52 arrestees met with prosecutors and a judge July 17 in a pre-trial meeting that left defense attorneys sounding cautiously optimistic about the possibility of a compromise: the arrestees would pay the fee, but the money would go to a charity for Iraqi children, either directly or through Lockheed.

The next meeting is set for Sept. 10, after all of the defendants have been arraigned, at which point a decision should be made about whether the cases will go to trial. Phil Andonian, a lawyer representing the demonstrators, characterized Santa Clara County District Attorney Sumerle Pfeffer's attitude as "very receptive," but he warned, "It's tough to say what the likelihood [of compromise] is."

Pfeffer, on the other hand, said the probability of a deal was "up to the defendants. They're the ones who can decide whether or not to plead."

She also denied that making the protesters pay restitution would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

"Everyone has a right to free speech, to protest as long as they do it in a positive and legal way," Pfeffer said. "These people chose to violate the law. Had they not done so, they wouldn't be in this position."

Defense lawyers acknowledged that there's nothing unusual about making criminals financially compensate victims for the damages caused by their crimes. But the main point of contention is whether Lockheed can hold protesters liable for the company's decision to hire additional security to supplement the Sunnyvale Police Department and Lockheed's existing security force.

Pfeffer maintained that the demonstrators were legally responsible for Lockheed's costs, even if "they didn't damage the fence or anything."

Defense attorney Dan Mayfield, on the other hand, characterized Lockheed's decision to beef up security as "paranoia" possibly fueled by false information.

"There's no legal connection between what the protesters did and Lockheed's alleged injuries," Mayfield said. "Is there a connection between protesters sitting in the street, not on Lockheed property, never entering Lockheed, never harming Lockheed in any way, just sitting in the street, and an injury to Lockheed based on increased security costs?"