Free Speech Zones

Great Debates
1

It seems to me that there was quite a bit of hostility to that phrase during the Bush years.

It’s come up again in a new context: an annual gay-pride festival uses a city park for its activities every year. The organizers of the gay pride event pay the city thousands of dollars for the use of the park, as well as thousands more for security, insurance, and trash pickup. The permit that they are granted every year says that, among other things, “…“all events and applicant’s guests, vendors, concessionaires and exhibitors are subject to and must abide by the codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, and laws…” of the park service, city, state, and federal government…" and that the permit does not grant the organizers exclusive control of the park.

This year, as in years past, an anti-gay religious figure seeks leave to hand out his pamphlets and Bibles at the festival, warning gays that their activities will bring eternal damnation. His request for a vendor booth was denied last year, and he attended anyway, at which point he was arrested. This year, he sues, saying that he has a First Amendment right to be there and do his thing. The gay pride people point out (quite reasonably, it seems to me) that they are paying for security, trash removal, and the like, and that his demand amounts to a demand that they pay for a venue for his distribution of material they find utterly antithetical to their beliefs.

A judge has sided with the religious figure, and in his opinion suggests that one way to balance the rights of the man with the rights of the event organizers would be a “free speech zone” that limited the man’s interaction with the crowd while not stifling his access completely.

In my view, the man has 363 days of the year to set up a booth and hand out bibles in the park if he wishes, and he shouldn’t get to ride the financial and organizational coattails of someone else by demanding access during the two days that their event is ongoing. I don’t think the First Amendment means that.

2

If the gay pride folks can discriminate against the guy based on his stated beliefs around sexual orientation (ie, denying him a booth rental), then can the gay rights crowd ever complain when *any *business denies them their perceived rights, based on the same principle?

3

To be fair, there was also quite a bit of hostility to them during the Clinton years when they were called something like “Bubble Zones” and were used to silence peaceful (if totally obnoxious) anti-abortion protesters.

If it’s a public venue, then I say let free speech reign. Is it a public park? Then put up with the bigoted jerk who also has every right to be there. Don’t want him there? Rent a convention center or something and deny/admit whoever you want. If it’s in a city park, and if the jackass is just being loud (but not violent, threatening, etc), he’s got just as much a right to be there.

The right to speak freely and to protest (however idiotic the protest) trumps the right to have a jackass annoy you.*
*I’m not on the side of the cretin who’s going to protest there, but there’s a free-speech principle at stake.

4

That’s a bad comparison. The religious figure is being denied a place in the parade because of his actions or opinions, not his sexual orientation.

Anyway the broader issue is interesting and my inclination is to say that public events, including rallies, should be open to everybody. I wonder if it’s different when you have an event featuring the President of the United States (as some of the controversial free speech zone events did) as compared to just a group of citizens, but still.

5

Well, there it is. If that’s what the permit says, then that’s what they’ve agreed to. Unless he’s violating any other ordinance or law, like sexual harassment or assault, then they’re in public and he has his right to assemble and speak. If they want a private gathering, they need to do it somewhere the contract provides for that.

I mean, I think he’s a grade a douchenozzle, and I wouldn’t be upset if everyone else exercised their legal right to spit near but not directly on him, but if I want my legal rights respected, I expect to respect others’ in turn.

6

Yup. Unless he’s harassing or intimidating people (or doing other over-the-top things like yelling over a bullhorn) he has the right to be there. Just like if the Christian Gay-To-Straight Conversion organization decided to hold a park rally and wanted to exclude gay protestors - no dice.

7

This is one of those gray areas, since it’s a private group renting out a public space. Presumably, the group gets something to say about the event since they are paying for security, trash, etc. I would say the guy could be excluded from that part of the park they are renting, but not the periphery or any other part of the park. But it would be much better if the group rented a private venue, where they would be free to control everything and avoid the gray area completely.

I’m thinking of how families sometimes rent out sections of public parks for big celebrations, or whatnot, and how we don’t allow any schmo to just crash that party and hang with the peeps.

8

This isn’t that, though - per the OP, the space isn’t being rented. The organizers are required to pay fees to cover the costs of accomodating such a large event - but they explicitly aren’t buying the right to control the park.

With that in mind - public parks, along with sidewalks and the village square, have been public fora since time out of mind. If this gay-bashing asshole wanted to bring in a few hundred of his jackass friends to hold a counter-demonstration, it would be fair to require they purchase a permit as well - but one man, placing a minimal burden on the park’s resources, shouldn’t have to.

As for the idea that this fellow has the other 363 days of the year to make his argument - that misses the point entirely. This fellow’s position is that the actions of gay-rights activists are wrong - and he believes, not unreasonably, that this point has the greatest force when there are actually a lot of gay-rights activists in the park. The First Amendment includes the right to offend - to wear a shirt that says “f–k the draft” into a courthouse, for example, even though “I find the draft objectionable” would convey a similar meaning.

9

OK, I misread the OP. I thought they were renting out a part of the park, but it appears they aren’t. So, tough cookies-- the anti-gay guy has the right to be there, as long he is not physically harassing anyone or blaring his views through a bullhorn, drowning out everyone within earshot.

10

I think it’s silly to expect any group holding an event to welcome a-holes who disagree with them on fundamental principles, so to me this is really about how the local government allows the use of public spaces like parks by private groups. The family picnic analogy is a good one – should I be able to stand in the middle of the Gonzales’ family reunion BBQ wearing a sandwich board that says “Mexicans go home”? What about stuff like concerts – San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park frequently has musical events like Lollapalooza where the sponsors control what vendor booths are allowed and where ticket holders deemed to be disruptive can be ejected (e.g. you can’t bring a megaphone and talk about the evils of rock and roll over the music).

So, I don’t think it’s as perfectly cut and dried as “any and all speech must be allowed in a public park”. The main thing is that the policy adopted by local governments be applied equally to everyone – if gay protestors can crash the church picnic, anti-gay church groups can crash the pride parade.

Lastly, I’m not sure why the OP referenced the uproar over the Bush-era free speech zones: the government attempting to limit the free speech of its citizens is a much bigger deal than two private groups squabbling over the use of a public park.

11

I think, more precisely, it’s any and all speech must be allowed in a public park when the permit expressly states that it’s not a private place and exclusive use is not granted.

If the permit granted exclusive use, then sure, keep out anyone you like. As long as the anti-gay and gay groups can both, practically speaking, get a permit (for different days, I suppose), then I’d have no problem with the city rewriting it’s permits to permit private parties from which you could keep anyone out. But that’s not what they have now.

12

Because:

13

And?

14

Isn’t this the flip side of the St. Patrick’s Day case? The Supreme Court said there that the marchers could permissibly exclude a gay group under their right of free association. It seems to me that the rally organizers in this new matter could invoke that same ruling and exclude this guy.

15

Come on, Giraffe, you know better. This year, the US President was Obama. And last year at this time, the US President was Obama. Clearly, this is all about people’s misunderstanding of Bush’s handling of “free speech zones.”

Unless this isn’t yet another “GOTCHA” thread from Bricker about how misguided liberals are hypocritical about something they protested during Bush’s administration. AMIRITE? Can a brother get a witness here?

16

The organizers of the event are required to get a permit, pay thousands of dollars to use the park, sign agreements, etc. as in Brickers OP. Why would the anti-gay religious figure, or anyone else for that matter, not be required to have similar permits, agreements and payments? If the anti-gay figure is seeking to operate under the umbrella of the gay-pride permit then don’t the organizers have any control of where and how booths are set up? Surely the event organizers aren’t required to allow space for anyone who applies, without question.

I think they should allocate this guy some space. Put him in a big rainbow tent with pink bunting with a pair of semi-nude men flanking the booth. Then, as long as he maintains basic decorum who can complain? Then they should apply to have a man-on-man hot oil massage booth at his next church event.

17

If the event organizers are paying a fee to use the park, it is effectively temporarily a private area, and they can trespass whoever they like. If they are paying for cleanup and security, but not for the actual use of the site, they’re SOL.

18

Then why isn’t that the subject of this latest “exploration”, Socrates?

19

Kinda curious how this can be reconciled with “Free Speech” zones when the president comes to town.

I have a right to access public thoroughfares in my city (or any US city). This zealot has a right to access the park.

I agree the guy should be allowed access to the park but then I want access to the street when the President drives by.

I cannot see how they can allow the guy in the park to hand out his bibles but keep me from the route the president is taking.

Something should give. Might be a great opportunity for the gay rights group to turn this around and force the SCOTUS to say it is one way or the other (then they can go hand out leaflets wherever they want to.

20

To me, the big difference is not necessarily whether there’s a public park involved, but that in the cases I remember getting irate about, the event in question was the president speaking, not an event organized by a private group.

Free speech is a lot more important when it comes to politics and elected public figures than it is in the context of some group’s party in the park, however laudable (or not) one might find that group and/or the protesters against it.