Legal Question: Collecting Petition Signatures on Public Property (County Fair, Specifically)

[HeyHomie]

@dofe

Hypothetically, do you think the county has any power to refuse any groups from renting booth space? What if the group seeks to promote an act that is currently illegal? Say, for example, someone who wishes to change the laws to legalize child pornography?

That is specifically what the Missouri Marijuana Legalization Movement is doing, promoting an act that is currently illegal. Someone who wanted to change the laws on child pornography may get punched in the nose by a passer-by, but he or she would have the same rights to gather signatures as someone who wanted to change the laws on selling liquor on Sunday, or mopery, or whatever.

[mhendo]

@dofe

Hypothetically, do you think the county has any power to refuse any groups from renting booth space? What if the group seeks to promote an act that is currently illegal? Say, for example, someone who wishes to change the laws to legalize child pornography?

But you’ve conflated two different but related issues here. Promoting illegal activity, on the one hand, and calling for a change in the law to make an activity legal, on the other, are not really the same thing.

To take your and HeyHomie’s examples, you might run into trouble if you go around encouraging people to have sex with minors, or to light up a joint. But if you’re simply asking them to work with you to change the age of consent, or to make marijuana legal, that’s quite a different thing.

[md2000]

Would a County Fair actually be a government entity? Or would it be a private, non-profit group sanctioned by the county to run a fair? If the latter, they would be in the same boat as a private mall or any other venue, renting the public grounds for a private function - admission by paid ticket only.

So it depends on whether the County Fair organization is considered an arm of the government, which is not necessarily a given. I would suggest many such organizations are at an arm’s length since it means the county would not be responsible for any deficits or outstanding bills… or lawsuits or any other legal issues, like petitioners wanting to collect signatures.

[dofe]

@mhendo

But you’ve conflated two different but related issues here. Promoting illegal activity, on the one hand, and calling for a change in the law to make an activity legal, on the other, are not really the same thing.

To take your and HeyHomie’s examples, you might run into trouble if you go around encouraging people to have sex with minors, or to light up a joint. But if you’re simply asking them to work with you to change the age of consent, or to make marijuana legal, that’s quite a different thing.

The difference here is that we’re talking about a county fair. If you’re asking whether someone has the right to petition for the right to change the age of consent laws at a historically public forum, such as a park, then yes – the government clearly has to meet strict scrutiny to prohibit this type of speech. But the Supreme Court has made clear that county fairs are not public forums, but instead are “limited public forums.” Hebron v. Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 US 640 (1981). The county could conceivably argue that due to the limited purpose of a county fair, it has the power to limit any speech that deals with illegal activity, whether it relates to child pornography or marijuana use.

[mhendo]

@dofe

The difference here is that we’re talking about a county fair. If you’re asking whether someone has the right to petition for the right to change the age of consent laws at a historically public forum, such as a park, then yes – the government clearly has to meet strict scrutiny to prohibit this type of speech. But the Supreme Court has made clear that county fairs are not public forums, but instead are “limited public forums.” Hebron v. Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 US 640 (1981). The county could conceivably argue that due to the limited purpose of a county fair, it has the power to limit any speech that deals with illegal activity, whether it relates to child pornography or marijuana use.

Well, if you had said this initially, then i wouldn’t have taken issue with your claim. But remember that your previous post, in its entirety, was:

@dofe

Hypothetically, do you think the county has any power to refuse any groups from renting booth space? What if the group seeks to promote an act that is currently illegal? Say, for example, someone who wishes to change the laws to legalize child pornography?

You made no mention of a specific court case or a specific ruling until AFTER my post.

BTW, it’s Heffron, not Hebron, and if you knew about this case, i’m not sure why you didn’t include it in your earlier posts to this thread, because it clearly answers the OP’s question in a pretty direct and on-point manner.

I would, however, question your analysis of the ruling’s significance. You suggest that, under Heffron, “the county could conceivably argue that due to the limited purpose of a county fair, it has the power to limit any speech that deals with illegal activity.” But as my link shows, the decision in the Heffron case requires that such bans on solicitation be content-neutral:

Using the “valid time, manner, and place” criteria which the Court employs to assess government restrictions of First Amendment activities, the Court held that Rule 6.05 did not violate the Constitution. Since the rule was applied equally to all groups wanting to solicit at the fairgrounds, not making restrictions based on the content of a group’s message, and because the state had an important interest in “protecting the safety and convenience” of the fair’s patrons, Justice White argued that the rule’s restrictions were legitimate. Allowing all religious, nonreligious, and commercial groups to move about the grounds distributing literature and soliciting funds would result in “widespread disorder” which would be potentially dangerous to the fair’s visitors.

It seems to me that the county would have to ban all solicitation, not just solicitation aimed at making illegal activities legal.

[dofe]

@mhendo

Well, if you had said this initially, then i wouldn’t have taken issue with your claim. But remember that your previous post, in its entirety, was:You made no mention of a specific court case or a specific ruling until AFTER my post.

BTW, it’s Heffron, not Hebron, and if you knew about this case, i’m not sure why you didn’t include it in your earlier posts to this thread, because it clearly answers the OP’s question in a pretty direct and on-point manner.

I would, however, question your analysis of the ruling’s significance. You suggest that, under Heffron, “the county could conceivably argue that due to the limited purpose of a county fair, it has the power to limit any speech that deals with illegal activity.” But as my link shows, the decision in the Heffron case requires that such bans on solicitation be content-neutral:It seems to me that the county would have to ban all solicitation, not just solicitation aimed at making illegal activities legal.

Apologies about the misspelling – autocorrect is a pain sometimes. And for the record, this thread is about county fairs, so I felt it was unnecessary to specify that in the discussion. With respect to me not mentioning the case earlier, I did mention the holding in post #9, even if didn’t cite the case law. The case law does not answer the OP because the issue before the court was different.

I actually agree that the scenario described by the OP could likely be unconstitutional, but I just dispute that it’s as clear as some suggest. This area of law is complicated and not entirely well developed. In Heffron, the Court explained that “[w]e have often approved restrictions of that kind [time, place, and manner] provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they serve a significant governmental interest, and that in doing so they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” 452 US at 647-48. However, the government may still regulate speech based on content if that speech “would disrupt the legitimate governmental purpose for which the property has been dedicated.” Consolidated Edison v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 US 530, 537 (1980). Could the county argue that it can regulate petitions relating to an illegal activity because it disrupts the purpose of the county fair to the extent the fair is designed to provide for family (and child) friendly activity? I think you could argue either way.

If you want to see what a court has a to say about marijuana legalization petitions on County fairs (granted just a district court, so of no binding authority to other courts), look up Mood for a Day v. Salt Lake County, 953 F.Supp 1252 (D. Utah, 1995).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk