From Rockland News Desk
The recent speculation that Ward 3 Clarkstown Councilman Don Franchino was going to propose restrictions on speech and protests at the Four Corners area in Nanuet are not accurate. A source at Town Supervisor George Hoehmann’s office confirmed that no proposals have been made to limit or relocate the protests. There are no official documents, meeting minutes, or announcements supporting the claim that any changes are under consideration.
What the media reported: Recent stories in RCBJ and LoHud raised alarms about possible restrictions on the Four Corners protests, citing social media posts and activist warnings. The articles suggested changes could be imminent. Again, this is inaccurate.
The proposal Franchino was making was to install safety barriers, either concrete or guardrails because of community concerns for the safety of pedestrians and cars alike. There have been a lot of protest activities going on there recently against various government officials and policies.
“I have been there when those protests have been going on and tried to walk past them. I either have to walk in the street or take the long was around through the parking lots either at the Rockland Plaza where Shake Shack and Chipotle are or through the Shops at Nanuet on that side of Middletown Road or through the Gulf Station or around the back of the Peace Vigil.” Said Scott Johnson.
Specifically, in an interview with Tom Ossa, Franchino cited Patrick Carroll, NYS Assemblyman for District 96, to advocate to New York State to invest in safety barriers for all the pedestrians and protestors, who typically use the weekends to voice their frustrations with Federal, State and local Government issues, spanning back to the 1970’s.
Carroll, in a press release, argued that the protests are protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not only protect convenient speech or viewpoints that public officials agree with. It protects the right of the people to assemble, to dissent and hold their government accountable.
Whereas Carroll’s statements are true, it does not address Franchino’s request for a safety barrier or guardrails. No mention of restricting speech or the right to protest was mentioned by Franchino in an interview with Tom Ossa on the Rockland News Livestream show. His statement there was that this was not about restricting free speech but about preventing a potentially catastrophic accident.
RCBJ and LoHud are being criticized for what people are calling “their reporting” and they say are largely based on activist warnings and social media claims, rather than official action. One Nanuet resident commented, “It’s not safe when people are acting like change is already happening — before anything is even proposed.”
Indivisible Rockland leaders, including Bill Batson, Pascal Jean‑Gilles, Nelcy Garcia De Leon, L’Tanya Watkins, Debbie Stedge, Darcy Casteleiro, and Tracey Obenauer, have raised alarms about possible changes. Their group’s mission emphasizes defending democracy, upholding civil liberties, and holding elected officials accountable. (indivisiblerockland.org)
The counter to their argument is that there is no threat to democracy from their opponents thus nothing to defend against. Especially in this case where the only thing that is in danger of being taken away is the danger of the protesters and innocent people being run over by a car speeding through the corner, taking the turn too fast or trying to beat out a yellow light before it turns red.
Again, the only thing Franchino was proposing was to put up barriers to protect the safety of ALL people, those who agree with government policies and officials and those who disagree with those same officials and policies.
“The people who are claiming that their rights are being taken away or limited and that THEY are protecting the Constitution, are the ones who need to go back and read the text of the First Amendment. It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances“ The highlighted part here is the part these people are not getting.” Said a person who said they have been at events where they have not been peaceful.
The protests at the Four Corners have been peaceful. No one is disputing that. The incidents where the protests have not been peaceful and/or have violated the rules set down for participants have been at Congressman Mike Lawler’s Town Hall events. Some of the same activists have been involved in confrontations at prior public events. Notably, Emily Feiner, an active participant in Indivisible Rockland protests, was carried out of a Rep. Lawler town hall after repeated warnings from staff — a moment documented in the Yonkers Times. Critics argue that groups claiming to defend free speech sometimes cross the line in how they protest.
Past actions and provocative messaging — from what some people call, staged “No Kings” rallies to heated social media posts — contribute to the perception of conflict. While Indivisible Rockland publicly prohibits hate speech, Nazi imagery, and violence in its code of conduct, critics point out instances at past protests that have drawn concern from local officials and media.
The current political climate is polarized, and speculation alone has proven enough to stir controversy. For now, Clarkstown residents, town leaders, and media consumers are left to separate fact from rumor — and to remind everyone that no one is losing their free speech at Four Corners.
Some of the indivisible supporters are Nyack News and Views with recent piece titled “THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE,” reporter Frank LoBuono highlighted steering‑committee members and their mission. At the same time, RCBJ (reporter Tina Traster) and LoHud (unnamed reporter) covered the Four Corners issue, quoting Supervisor Hoehmann but framing the stories around speculation.
Additionally, these periodicals
RCBJ (Tina Traster) has published critical reporting on Lawler’s responsiveness and leadership with no evidence, while also giving sympathetic space to Indivisible’s warnings and advocacy. She also said in an article, But now, Republican officials in Clarkstown are floating the idea of restricting the hours protesters can assemble or suggesting there may be “better” locations for protesters to gather including on the Rockland Community College campus, which is in Ramapo.
This is contradicted by Franchino’s statement about only putting up safety barriers. He did not mention limiting speech or protest times or moving them to Ramapo. As was confirmed by George Hoehmann’s office.
Nyack News & Views (Frank LoBuono) has clearly framed Indivisible Rockland in a positive light, highlighting their mission and organizers.
LoHud coverage is more neutral but often highlights criticisms of Lawler, effectively casting him in a negative light without evidence or explicitly endorsing Indivisible.
People have said that all of this shows that much of the local community news is either biased or overly speculative, favoring activist narratives or framing events as imminent crises without supporting evidence. All of this illustrates that most local media coverage has been critical of Lawler and that stories about Four Corners restrictions are largely speculative. This county needs a newspaper that provides factual, verified reporting — and if speculation like this is written at all, it should appear as an Op‑Ed rather than being presented as news.
The person who sent this information to Rockland Post says local media coverage shows a clear pattern:
Why it matters: Reporting speculation as fact can unnecessarily escalate tensions, spread misinformation, and make a safe protest environment feel unsafe. It can rile people up into a frenzy that can and has happened across the nation caused people to act violently against people who don’t believe like they do.
In a polarized political climate, speculation alone has proven enough to stir controversy. For now, Clarkstown residents, town leaders, and media consumers are left to separate fact from rumor — and to remind everyone that no one is losing their free speech at Four Corners or anywhere else.