SEEKING GUIDANCE FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

A formal inquiry into the legal status of fighting fascism with phalluses

Dear Permits Specialist,

My name is Rook T. Winchester. I am the founder, editor-in-chief, and primary writer of Closer to the Edge, a reader-powered independent journalism publication currently reaching readers in all 50 states. I am writing to request a formal pre-activity advisory opinion regarding a proposed expressive activity at the Reflecting Pool on or around July 4, 2026, which I believe does not require a permit under applicable NPS regulations, but about which I have developed a number of questions I have been unable, despite considerable effort, to satisfactorily resolve on my own.

I want to be transparent with you. This letter is uncomfortable to write. I suspect it may be uncomfortable to read. I apologize in advance — though not very much, because the discomfort is, in a manner of speaking, the point. I ask only that you remain with me to the end. I promise it gets harder before it gets easier.

I. Description of Proposed Activity

On or around July 4, 2026, a group of fewer than 25 individuals — organized under the banner of the Dildo Distribution Delegation, a protest collective committed to the philosophy of tactical frivolity — intends to briefly introduce a collection of rubber phalluses into the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall.

I recognize that sentence exists now and cannot be taken back. I stand by it.

Each object will bear a written message of political or constitutional significance — including but not limited to phrases such as “FIGHT FASCISM,” “WE THE PEOPLE,” “FIRST AMENDMENT,” and potentially the names of specific constitutional provisions currently under assault by the executive branch of the United States government. The messages will be legible. We have given considerable thought to shaft length as it relates to character count.

All objects will be retrieved from the water upon conclusion of the activity, which isn’t expected to last very long. Nothing will be left standing. No structures will be erected — a term we will return to in Section III, as it raises more questions than one might expect.

The objects in question are legal consumer products, commercially available at retailers across the United States, including several national chains. They are made of non-toxic, water-safe materials. They will not damage, stain, or chemically alter the water or pool infrastructure. We have done the research.

The intended message of this action is as follows: America is being asked to look away from what is happening to its democracy. We intend to give it something impossible to look away from. The Reflecting Pool has, since this nation’s founding, served as a mirror. On July 4, 2026, we intend to hold that mirror up and ask the nation what it sees. We understand that what it sees may shock it. We consider that the desired outcome.

We are fighting fascism with phalluses. We recognize you may have some questions. We are prepared to provide you with answers at whatever length the agency deems necessary.

II. Legal Basis for Belief That No Permit Is Required

Under 36 CFR 7.96(g)(h), demonstrations involving 25 or fewer persons may be held without a permit, provided the group does not erect temporary structures beyond small lecterns or speakers’ platforms, and the group is not merely an extension of a larger permitted demonstration. We meet both criteria, pending your answer to our question regarding what, precisely, constitutes an erection under federal park regulations.

We further contend that the deployment of message-bearing floating objects in a public water feature, with plans for retrieval and no lasting impact on park resources, constitutes expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently held that symbolic speech — particularly political symbolic speech — occupies the highest tier of First Amendment protection. We are aware this may be the first time that principle has been applied to buoyant adult novelty items. We consider that distinction an opportunity, not a liability.

We acknowledge this is a novel legal question. We are requesting this advisory opinion precisely because we wish to act in good faith. We are not trying to be difficult. We are trying to be impossible to ignore, which is a different thing entirely.

III. Formal Questions for Advisory Opinion

We respectfully request written answers to the following questions. We have attempted to order them from least to most awkward, and largely failed.

1. What constitutes an “erection” under 36 CFR 7.96, and is that definition applied uniformly regardless of the object’s material composition, orientation, or buoyancy?

2. Does size matter? Specifically: is there a minimum or maximum dimension for objects introduced temporarily into the Reflecting Pool, and does the agency’s answer change based on whether the objects are floating vertically or horizontally?

3. Is there a regulatory maximum number of floating objects permitted in the Reflecting Pool simultaneously, and does the answer change if the objects are deployed in formation?

4. At what point does a collection of floating objects achieve sufficient mass or visual impact to constitute a “demonstration” for permit purposes — and is that threshold measured by number, surface area, or the subjective reaction of onlookers?

5. If 1,776 objects are deployed in honor of the nation’s founding year, does the patriotic significance of the number constitute a legally relevant mitigating factor in any enforcement action, or does the agency take the position that the founders would have wanted fewer?

6. Is there a specific regulation prohibiting objects shaped like human genitalia on NPS land, or must such a prohibition name the shape explicitly to be enforceable? We ask because vagueness doctrine cuts both ways.

7. The objects will bear written political messages. At what point does a message-bearing phallus become protected political speech, and does the medium affect the constitutional analysis, or merely the comfort level of those conducting it?

8. We plan to retrieve all objects upon completion. Does the thoroughness of our extraction procedure have any bearing on the agency’s enforcement posture? We intend to be very thorough.

9. If a permitted demonstration is occurring simultaneously elsewhere on the Mall and a member of that demonstration walks over and observes ours, have the two demonstrations merged? And if so, who is responsible for the resulting entity?

10. If the activity draws a crowd of onlookers who are not participants, does their presence count toward the 25-person threshold — and if an onlooker begins laughing, have they joined the demonstration?

11. If objects bearing the text of the First Amendment float within sight of the Lincoln Memorial, does the Memorial’s historical significance as a site of protest affect the constitutional weight of the activity? We ask in the spirit of thematic coherence.

12. If one of our objects is confiscated as evidence, are there chain-of-custody requirements that govern how it must be handled, stored, and ultimately disposed of?

13. If a participant is also a credentialed member of the press documenting the activity for publication, do their press rights provide additional protection — or does the First Amendment simply apply twice in that instance?

14. Is the NPS prepared to provide a written advisory opinion on this proposed activity prior to July 4, 2026? If not, will the agency provide its declination in writing, and does a failure to respond constitute implicit acknowledgment that no applicable prohibition exists?

15. Does the NPS wish to be credited by name in the resulting coverage, or would the agency prefer attribution to “a federal permits specialist who read the whole thing twice and still wasn’t sure what to do”?

IV. Closing Statement

I want to be clear: we are not trying to make your job difficult. We are trying to make America look at itself. The Reflecting Pool has always been a place of reflection — of grief, of protest, of national reckoning. On July 4, 1776, a group of men signed a document asserting that certain truths were self-evident. On July 4, 2026, a group of fewer than 25 people intend to float some very well-labeled rubber phalluses in a federally managed body of water and ask whether those truths still hold.

We look forward to your written response. We will publish it.

Respectfully, and with the full weight of the First Amendment firmly erect behind us,

Rook T. Winchester

---