Free Speech Zones

[CannyDan]

Am I misunderstanding something, or are they refusing to rent him a vendor booth? Seems like controlling the vendors and exhibitors in their own event space is perfectly reasonable. Maybe they want soft drinks but not beer. Perhaps they wish to have paint artists but not performance artists. Their sales of vendor space should certainly be under their control.

This should not prevent the religious person from accessing the park and handing out whatever materials he wishes. In doing so he should be constrained, not by the event organizers, but by local ordinances regulating disruptive behavior. As long as he isn’t “yelling fire” he should be allowed individual access and freedom. But surely the organizers can refuse him a booth rental.

If he was arrested last year, do we know why? Was it for some form of disruptive behavior? Bets?

And what do these private actors have to do with governmental imposition of restrictions on free speech of individual citizens?

[TriPolar]

I think we should consider whether the protestors actions are affecting other people’s free speech rights. If not, let him speak. Free speech zones are a much worse problem because it is the government itself which is restricting the freedom in order to enforce their own, as opposed to private parties. But the more free speech for everybody, the better off we are.

[Bricker]

@Giraffe

And?

He wasn’t arrested by the gay pride enforcement committee. He was arrested by the police, the government, for the crime of standing in the park and distribuing his literature. That is “the government attempting to limit the free speech of its citizens,” isn’t it?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

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.

They are paying a fee to use the park. But the permit that they get for that fee says that they don’t get exclusive use of the park.

[Bricker]

@CannyDan

Am I misunderstanding something, or are they refusing to rent him a vendor booth? Seems like controlling the vendors and exhibitors in their own event space is perfectly reasonable. Maybe they want soft drinks but not beer. Perhaps they wish to have paint artists but not performance artists. Their sales of vendor space should certainly be under their control.

Correct, and he doesn’t object to that. He objected to being banned from entering the park and walking around handing out Bibles.

This should not prevent the religious person from accessing the park and handing out whatever materials he wishes. In doing so he should be constrained, not by the event organizers, but by local ordinances regulating disruptive behavior. As long as he isn’t “yelling fire” he should be allowed individual access and freedom. But surely the organizers can refuse him a booth rental.

If he was arrested last year, do we know why? Was it for some form of disruptive behavior? Bets?

No. He was arrested for trespassing, after the event organizers complained. There was no allegation of disruptive behavior.

And what do these private actors have to do with governmental imposition of restrictions on free speech of individual citizens?

Well, if I recall, the police work for the government, don’t they?

[WhyNot]

@Bricker

He wasn’t arrested by the gay pride enforcement committee. He was arrested by the police, the government, for the crime of standing in the park and distribuing his literature. That is “the government attempting to limit the free speech of its citizens,” isn’t it?

Do you have a listing of the charges for that arrest last year? Or are you making that up?

What are you looking for here, Bricker? A condemnation of the police arresting him for not violating any laws last year? Ok, that sucks. They shouldn’t do that, if that’s what they did.

But I suspect they found a statute or two, possibly disturbing the peace or something similar, that he violated and that they charged him with. I don’t know that for sure, but it sounds like you don’t, either.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

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.

I agree, although I am at the opposite side. I think it’s appropriate for the gay pride folks to get temporary rights to exclude the religious guy, and I think it’s appropriate for the government to be able to limit protests furing a President’s appearance to certain areas.

So I agree that the two decisions don’t match, but I’d decide this one the other way on order to stay consistent.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

He wasn’t arrested by the gay pride enforcement committee. He was arrested by the police, the government, for the crime of standing in the park and distribuing his literature. That is “the government attempting to limit the free speech of its citizens,” isn’t it?

We don’t actually know what his crime was. If he was standing in the park, discussing with those who were interested his views, offering pamphlets to those who would take them, then i’d certainly be concerned about the arrest. If he was yelling and shouting, using or carrying abusive or violent messages, then i’d be less so.

In a sense (probably the point being meant by the OP), the two have a level of equivalency. Limiting protesters because they can protest whenever or wherever on any other day of the year seems reasonable, but the whole point is that, with the President in town, the protest may be more widely seen or gain enough interest. Likewise, presumably the protesting man in this case feels that he will be able to get his message across more effectively or widely on that particular day, and I can’t say I don’t disagree.

Honestly the question for me isn’t when or where protest is appropriate, or the content of that protest, but the manner of it.

[NotreDame05]

@Bricker

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.

Bricker, can you tell me if the man would have to obtain a permit to hand out Bibles and pamphlets in the park? If not, then I fail to see this as an instance where they have paid for a venue for this person. If the person in question would not ordinarily have to pay for a permit to begin with, then they can hardly scream they are paying for his venue here. It is not an instance where he can claim he is entitled to do what he does because of the permit they have obtained.

[NotreDame05]

@John_Mace

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.

I agree. Furthermore, if the man does not have to obtain a permit at all to do what he is doing, then I think Bricker’s characterization of this as an instance the individual is free loading finanacially off of the back of this organization is not accurate.

Essentially, I like Mr Excellent’s point.

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.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

They are paying a fee to use the park. But the permit that they get for that fee says that they don’t get exclusive use of the park.

Then assuming he would not otherwise require a permit to solicit in the park he should be allowed to stay.

I don’t really see this as analogous to Presidential access issues. National security sometimes trumps civil liberties, and access to the CoC is one area where I’m okay with that.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

They are paying a fee to use the park. But the permit that they get for that fee says that they don’t get exclusive use of the park.

Then if I can wander through the park, which presumably I could, so can he. If I can engage in mildly annoying but not illegal behavior in the park, which presumably I could, then so can he. I’d say the line is crossed with engaging in behavior that would be illegal in its disruptiveness under any other circumstance.

At any rate, there is no ‘free speech zone’ at issue here. Presumably anti-gay protestors could stand on every sidewalk around the park, even if excluded from the park itself, and hold up signs about how sodomy is the Hershey highway to hell. There is no claim on your part that potential protestors are confined to some far-off area where they would have minimal (if any) opportunity to be seen and heard by those whose actions they’re protesting, which was of course the essence of the ‘free speech zones’ at the assorted events where they were employed.

False equivalence. But thanks for playing.

[Giraffe]

@Bricker

He wasn’t arrested by the gay pride enforcement committee. He was arrested by the police, the government, for the crime of standing in the park and distribuing his literature. That is “the government attempting to limit the free speech of its citizens,” isn’t it?

:dubious:

Are you pulling my leg? Is this some sort of devil’s advocate thing, where you are pretending to care about something to try to score points against perceived partisan hypocrites? Because I don’t really want to waste my time writing out a response if this whole thing is just a minor skirmish in the endless talking point war.

Just on the off chance that you’re serious, here’s the fairly obvious answer to that: as I mentioned in my previous post, I think local government has the right to allow groups to use public spaces for private events, provided they do so without bias. Which would of course removing those individuals who are trespassing on said events. Said local government is not suppressing the free speech rights of the people they remove, they are enforcing the local laws, as is their job.

Thus, the implication in your OP that those of us who were deeply offended by the actions of our President to limit citizens’ abilities to exercise their rights to free speech should find a minor local event like this to be of equal seriousness is confusing, if not laughable. Hence my suspicion that you’re just having us on and I’m wasting my time with this post.

Heck, even if the mayor of that city jailed every citizen who voted Democrat, it wouldn’t be remotely comparable. You know why? Because dipshit local politicians are a dime a dozen. Do you expect anyone to assign equal importance to what some generic dipshit city councilman or police office does in some random dipshit little town compared with the actions of the President of the United States?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

I agree, although I am at the opposite side. I think it’s appropriate for the gay pride folks to get temporary rights to exclude the religious guy, and I think it’s appropriate for the government to be able to limit protests furing a President’s appearance to certain areas.

So I agree that the two decisions don’t match, but I’d decide this one the other way on order to stay consistent.

I would agree with you if the event was a private event (say a wedding in the park…only invited guests allowed).

However, this is a public event. Anyone is welcome to come on in and enjoy the festivities. Yes it is privately organized but it is open to the public.

As such I think he should be allowed.

Likewise the president is a public figure. He is my president. We have a right to redress government and peaceably assemble. The president can keep me out of the private hall he rented to give a speech but should not be able to keep me off a public street.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

. . . Socrates?

Sarcastic name calling is name calling and you will stop doing that in this forum.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@Bricker

His request for a vendor booth was denied last year, and he attended anyway, at which point he was arrested.

I’m not sure how this bears on anything.

First I would need to know the charge on which he was arrested and then the disposition of the arrest.

Was he arrested for appearing in the park? Was the arrest thrown out by the DA or the court? Was he actually tried and found guilty of some offense?

Was he arrested for disturbing the peace? Based on what? Setting up a booth without a permit? Wandering around? Pulling out a bullhorn and disrupting the event?

If the cops were overzealous in arresting him, that is a separate issue from whether he is allowed to be there. If his arrest was based on an action that was actually disruptive, then it should have no bearing on any suit he brought thisyear.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

Then if I can wander through the park, which presumably I could, so can he. If I can engage in mildly annoying but not illegal behavior in the park, which presumably I could, then so can he. I’d say the line is crossed with engaging in behavior that would be illegal in its disruptiveness under any other circumstance.

At any rate, there is no ‘free speech zone’ at issue here. Presumably anti-gay protestors could stand on every sidewalk around the park, even if excluded from the park itself, and hold up signs about how sodomy is the Hershey highway to hell. There is no claim on your part that potential protestors are confined to some far-off area where they would have minimal (if any) opportunity to be seen and heard by those whose actions they’re protesting, which was of course the essence of the ‘free speech zones’ at the assorted events where they were employed.

False equivalence. But thanks for playing.

Actually, the judge’s opinion has a footnote which suggests that the gay pride folks could limit the guy to specific “free speech zone” areas if they wished. That’s what caused me to draw the comparison in the first place.