This ordinance is being mentioned by some Facebook friends of mine because a church group was arrested for violating it.
My question is, is the ordinance compatible with the first amendment? It seems overly restrictive to me on a gut level, but I know it’s legally okay to limit manner, place and time of speech, so–does that make this ordinance legally okay?
IAN, of course, AL, but this does not seem particularly broad or restrictive. It seems quite clear, and quite limited in its scope. It limits one particular set of activities, in one location, during specific times of the day.
Considering that the sidewalk and streets are public, and that the local business (bars, restaurants) owners (for whose benefit I assume this ordinance was passed) are probably to some degree responsible for the upkeep of that thoroughfare, it does not seem unreasonable that they should have a free flow of potential customers during their prime business hours, i.e. after dark. (I am assuming this is Bourbon St. in New Orleans, and that this is the nature of the businesses on that street.)
Roddy
Could be demonstrated to be a matter of public safety as well.
I suspect it might be legally okay because nobody has challenged it. It seems to unnecessarily curtail free speech to me. If a few of my lady friends from the WCTU want to go down there and hold prayer vigils, sing a few songs and attempt to persuade people not to give in to demon rum then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be permitted to do so.
Some research turned up this complaint, the Causes of Action (2) start at paragraph 45. I understand also a Federal Judge has issued a TRO to block enforcement.
The sourced webpage said it was the 2nd complaint in a month, I believe the ACLU filed one also. I do not know if the TRO was from that one or this one, or if they were consolidated.
I am a lawyer and I strongly predict that it will be found to be unconstitutional.
For a start, how could ONE person “block” a sidewalk? Or two or three? Second, Bourbon Street epitomizes what is meant by a “public place”–and nobody’s gonna convince me that it turns into a quiet suburban neighborhood after sunset, where people go to get some sleep before the next workday. It’s access to exactly these kinds of locations that the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances is intended to protect. Finally, there’s no restriction here in the manner of dissemination (for instance, no prohibition on loudspeakers, or buttonholing the tourists, or erecting a sidewalk-blocking speakers’ platform). It’s a direct prohibition on protected speech for no apparent reason. Judges understand that there’s a balance between the right of open discourse and the fact that it’s sometimes inconvenient for the uninterested to be discoursed to.
If New Orleans rewrites it to : " No assemblage of more than [fifteen] persons shall be made on Bourbon Street after the setting of the sun without an assembly permit obtained from the City [at a reasonable, not prohibitive, fee, and such permits may not be withheld on the basis of the group’s political, social, or religious views]"–they might have a chance with something like that. Although I’ve seen assemblies of larger numbers of persons on Bourbon Street–they were, however, intent on drinking, not orating.
Just so people don’t think these rules were passed to outlaw a couple of people handing out Chick Tracts, I’ve seen religious groups assemble literally hundreds of people to try to take over Bourbon Street with their preaching. You also get groups with bullhorns screaming nasty things at the crowds (fags are going to burn, etc.). They hold parades where they march in a conga line fashion (without the dancing of course) down the middle of the street, again with the hell talk. They really go for the all out buzz kill, and Bourbon Street is ground zero for the Jesus freaks. You can find a lot of stuff on Youtube like this. I’m not weighing in on the legality, just more of an FYI.
When I was younger I used to go to Mardi Gras every year to meet up with friends from across the country. There was always a small group of Jesus Freaks on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras. The cops generally leave them alone as long as they don’t physically accost anyone.
Sometimes they used to be on the other side of the pylons at the end of bourbon street (where all the gay bars are), now they just hang out where they can obstruct the most traffic.
Vague and content-specific? Without dong the research, I’ll say unconstitutional.
I don’t know all the case law and stuff, but I find the law disconcerting. I have a hard time seeing why the government has a compelling interest in limiting these kinds of speech to daylight hours only.
The wording of the ordinance is also kind of goofy, since loitering means “to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose.”
I could have been arrested many times under that law.
Myself, and many thousands of like-minded others, dressed in like colors and descended upon Bourbon Street after sunset and congregated to disseminate a social message.
“Gooooooooooooo DAWGS! Sic 'em. Woof Woof Woof Woof Woof!”
I agree with time, manner, and place restrictions, but these restrictions are solely so that the target audience of these speakers (in a public place) will be elsewhere when they deliver their message. I vote unconstitutional.
Can I vote that “dong the research” be a new SD meme?
I give you full permission to use that - but you should know that I am officially naming my school notebook Dong.
Research ensues.
Probably too broad to stand but I’ve got no real problem with it either. It sounds like the type of thing cities do to insure that businesses stay happy. It isn’t discriminating on the basis of any protected class.
You believe freedom of speech should apply only to protected classes?
What this law say is, in effect, “No person, or group of people, can stand on this street and TALK during restricted hours.”
That stuff about political, religious or social messages is just bullshit. It’s hard for for anyone to speak at all without delivering a political, religious or social message – that is unless you’re speaking complete gibberish.
Unconstitutional without question to this non-lawyer.