Ran across this story in the morning paper. Found it quite curious, because it addresses a direct conflict between 2 of the “values” I hold most dear.
If I were to list the “values” I hold most dear, free speech is likely at the top of my personal list. While it is not quite in the same category of “value”, I have little respect for pretty much anything related to organized religion, and I despise evangelicals. Maybe more of a prejudice than a value. So I found interesting my reaction to this story.
Wheaton College is a very religious college 20-some miles west of Chicago. Founded by or strongly associated w/ Billy Graham. The town of Wheaton was dry until a couple of decades ago, and if you walk in their downtown, you are liable to be accosted by young people asking if you have accepted Jesus as your personal savior. I tend to find such behavior obnoxious, but as a strong supporter of free speech, I have to acknowledge that they should be allowed to use the public sidewalks and that my response is through speech.
So apparently these bible-thumpers got into the habit of taking the train into Chicago and harassing people in Millenium Park - one of Chicago’s most popular tourist sites. Apparently there are some regulations restricting proselytizing, political speech, etc. to a specific area of the park. My initial reaction was - Great! If I’m in a park, the last thing I want is to be hassled by some zealot. But I quickly acknowledged the other hand, on which public parks are among the most appropriate forums for speech.
Maybe not quite along the lines of the Nazis marching in Skokie, but similar WRT my personal values.
Wondering if anyone had thoughts about this situation, or other instances in which you found yourself conflicted, or where your values had you supporting someone you disfavor.
My understanding is that they’re just being asked not to do it so close to the Bean where all the tourist want to hang out and snap pictures. Distribute your stuff, that’s cool, but just do it over there, OK? I can live with that.
People should be free to speak. But other people should be free to ignore them.
Nobody has a right to force other people to listen to their speech. So I feel it’s a reasonable regulation to say that people can speak in a public place but limit it so that other people can still use the public place without having to hear your speech.
I’d be just as annoyed if a fellow atheist decided to lecture everyone in the park on evils of faith and religion.
I guess Public Nuisance Laws are in force which limit that sort of haranguing of the public to a limited area. As long as I can easily avoid it, let 'em rant. Just keep it the fuck down.
How do you rationalize that? I can imagine saying don’t set up tables or banners, don’t touch others, don’t solicit donations, no amplified devices, don’t aggressively pursue them if told to fuck off… But as annoying as I find it, having someone come up to me in a public park and nonviolently express their view on just about any topic, while offering me literature at no charge? I have a hard time thinking why one area of a particular park ought to be closed off for that purpose.
And I did not look into it deeply, but understood that the park was divided into 11 areas, and proselytizing was allowed in only 1 of them.
Fuck 'em. Throw them in jail for Disturbing the Peace. When they protest said imprisonment, run Chaplinsky v New Hampshire at them. That is, if Illinois has a law like New Hampshire’s that prohibits * intentionally offensive, derisive, or annoying speech to any person who is lawfully in a street or public area.* If Illinois/Chicago doesn’t have such a law, they need one.
Interesting. I was not aware. I’ll have to look into how they define their terms and enforce it.
But I’m pretty sure IL/Chi does not have such a law. If they did, I’m pretty sure I’d be aware.
Reminds me of an incident - almost 30 yrs ago - that really drove home to me how much I value free speech rights. I was minding my own business on a nice sunny day, walking to the commuter train with all the other lemmings. Along a downtown street (Randoph, just E of Wacker) those anti-abortion assholes had their posters of (purported) aborted fetuses, with their small children passing out literature. I fel assaulted. And my first reaction was anger. I wanted to kick over the posters, and maybe even confront the idiots. But instead, something in me made me think that if their offensive speech was so powerful that it incited such a strong reaction in me, that confirmed my belief that speech ought be abridged as little as possible.
Just my reaction and values - not necessarily anyone else’s.
On edit - wow - I really didn’t think my advocacy of minimal constraints on speech would qualify me as an outlier around these parts.
I find myself regularly conflicted on this in Taiwanese politics. I tend to be a socially conservative person, but I am also extremely adamant against the idea of Taiwan becoming part of China. There are two main parties in Taiwan; the KMT (conservative) and DPP (liberal) parties. The conservative party favors becoming part of China; the liberal party favors independence. So I am internally conflicted on such issues.
As the ACLU has to remind folks all too often, IMHO, it’s not popular speech that requires protection. (Disclosure: I hate Illinois Nazis as much as Jake Blues ever did, and I carry my ACLU card proudly.) So yeah, even though I’m a pretty committed atheist, I think the evangelical nutjobs should be able to speak their piece anywhere in the park.
Should they be allowed to speak their piece anywhere they want? If they buy a ticket to a movie, can they get up during the show and begin preaching to the crowd? Presumably with a megaphone so they can be heard over the movie.
A buddy of mine whose views I generally respect addressed this issue today. He proposes allowing proselytizing throughout the park, except for a buffer zone around the cloudgate/bean sculpture (one of the park’s most popular features.) I believe he proposes 100’.
At first blush, his proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise. Both sides get something, neither side is completely satisfied.
But I’m not entirely convinced. What compelling government or social interest permits restricting the area around the bean? And what is magical about 100’? Why not 50’? Or 150’?
According to his column, the current rules allow proselytizers in the far NW corner of the park - sort of the formal gateway (which I don’t know if I’ve EVER been to in my several visits of the park), and the sidewalks surrounding the park.
In case anyone is interested, here is a map of the park.
How about preaching on the Metra train to/from Chicago?* Metra is a public entity, but arguably not a public forum because it has one purpose, transportation. And while talking on the train is obviously allowed (yes, even in the quiet car), preaching to random commuters who want to be left alone and effectively can’t leave (they can go to another car, but are hardly going to leave the train before their destination) is obnoxious.
*I’m curious if these Wheaton students preached on the trains during these trips. If not, could it be that they realize preaching to a captive audience is obnoxious? Or were they afraid that the conductor would remove them? And if they did preach, what did the conductors do?
