I wonder if there is some provision against “soliciting” or engaging in behavior that “annoys/offends” other passengers. At least if other passengers complained.
Tourist dollars. I’m quite sure the city lawyers could craft a law requiring such people to keep 100’ from the Cloud, or completely out of that section of the park. That would leave 5/6ths of the park open to the nutballs and keep the tourists from being bothered.
I guess I’m leery about carving out restrictions I agree with, for fear that opens the door to creating restrictions I DON’T.
And I try to avoid most slippery slope arguments, but why just THIS exception? Immediately south of the bean is the Crown Fountain, which I imagine is the 2d most visited portion of the park (at least in warm weather.) Really neat the cross section of people and kids who splash around in it - I’ve seen TV stars and their kids, next to what appear to be inner city kids. Why not ban the nutballs from there? And just a couple of blocks away is the Buckingham Fountain - another major tourist draw…
Oh, I agree with you. Either you believe in Free Speech for people you hate or you don’t believe in it at all. I’m just pointing out the legal and practical ways a city can localize groups that assault and demean people in public.
This. What is the compelling public interest for limiting speech at all, in any part of the park? Because (some) people don’t want to hear it? It’s a public space - freedom of speech applies to all public spaces.
If atheists want to try to convince me that there is no God in a public park, feel free. I will either engage, or not, depending on how I feel. If it crosses the line into harassment, and that is obviously going to be a gray area, that’s one thing. Just having four atheists handing out leaflets asking me about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is another.
If they are not letting tourists take pictures of the Cloud, that is interfering with other people’s use of the park. Not letting Wheaton students proselytize is also interfering, and with a right that is a lot more important than tourism.
Regards,
Shodan
I remember reading about a Buddhist temple that had a cockroach problem. They venerate all life, so they were deeply conflicted. After days of prayer and meditation, they decided to call the exterminator. They drew the line at cockroaches.
As should the city of Chicago. 
A remarkably apt comparison to the OP’s scenario. Listen, everyone in this country has heard about JC and the works perpetrated by his ostensible followers. I’d be willing to bet only one in a hundred proselytizers ever gets a sincere, “Jesus who? What are you on about? Tell me more!” in their entire life. What they do is really no different from publicly encouraging people to force their kids to drink bleach. Free Speech: There is raising the alarm about a corrupt government, which is annoying to hear all the time but vital for actual freedom in our material world; and then there is this evangelical crap, which is trivially different from leaving steaming piles of shit all over the park. It’s annoying, unwanted, and leads to all manner of ill health. Yes, they should be shut down.
The joke I heard was the Lutheran church which had a mouse problem. One day, they all disappeared. They asked the pastor how he did it.
“I just confirmed those mice, and I never saw them again.”
Emphasis added.
This is content-based censorship, and is outlawed by the Constitution.
It always amazes me - Trump is President, the Supreme Court has lost its liberal majority, and people want the government to decide what is important free speech and what is a public nuisance to be shut down.
“Free speech for me, but not for thee” doesn’t work.
Tell you what, Inigo - get the above law passed, go stand by the Cloud, repeat exactly what you posted above, and then explain to the police why you shouldn’t be arrested for annoying people to no purpose.
Regards,
Shodan
This, exactly. WTF are you guys (looking specifically at Inigo and silenus) thinking? Are you really so short-sighted that you can’t see the myriad ways your attitude, if adopted more broadly, is going to backfire spectacularly on you?
Movie theaters are open to anyone who wishes to enter them. And I specifically said the speaker bought a ticket. So I don’t see the relevance of your exception.
Not to derail the thread, but do they slap mosquitoes?
Use antibiotics to kill off bacterial infections? Chemotherapy to kill cancer cells?
Not being snarky, genuinely inquiring.
No they aren’t. Movie theaters are private property. The right to be there is conditional upon buying a ticket, and that comes with a bunch of conditions attached. Two completely different examples. See here for some applicable court cases.
Agreed. Their right to proselytize is just as sacrosanct as my right to tell ‘em to fuck off.
Discouraging people from soliciting for cults that seek to scam and control their minds and bodies is a bad thing? Nope. Not seeing the downside at all. We can be all fluffy and philosophical and pretend to draw comparisons, but it is a time-proven fact that a religion that has to be sold is no religion. Maybe we need a different thread for this.
Maybe I didn’t make the point clearly.
There is that law finding it illegal to make speech that is deliberately annoying. You mention that pointing out the flaws of the Trump administration is annoying. Therefore, someone pointing out the flaws of the Trump administration in that park would be breaking the law, just as much as the Wheaton students. Do you see a downside there?
And I don’t think it helps to say “they wouldn’t do that because I am right”. Trump is in the White House, the GOP controls the Senate, and liberals do not control the Supreme Court. What makes you think that they are going to go along with what you think is right?
Regards,
Shodan
Read what I wrote again for comprehension, or at least drop your word-twisting schtick. I have no problem with being annoyed (although I find it annoying). I have a problem with allowing conmen to operate freely, disingenuously claiming 1st amendment protection.
There is also a substantive difference between publicly declaiming from a street corner and personally assaulting and insulting someone.
I don’t know why someone felt the need to make this thread about Trump, but - well, folk can post what they want.
I’m wondering about government rights to restrict all manner of speech in public spaces. I’m not sure as to the specific status of Arlington Nat’l Cemetery- I seem to recall driving right in, but I can imagine there are some rules about “showing respect” or somesuch. But why SHOULDN’T someone be able to loudly proclaim that the Tomb of the Unknown glorifies the military?
I wonder what kinds of restrictions apply in national parks.
I’m trying to come up with other public spaces in which all manner of peaceful speech ought not be allowed - subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
Yeah, the Bean is pretty neat, and is a major photo opportunity - but this far lefty is having a hard time thinking why bible-thumpers, war protesters, political advocates, or anyone else ought not be allowed to annoy people - ahem, spread their message - where the people are. Doesn’t make much sense to allow the speech only where it won’t be heard (thinking of the protest corrals at the political conventions.)
Just for clarification, because I had a hard time actually finding it, here are the new rules (bolding mine):
By my calculation, the “free speech zone” on the sidewalk is a whole 40 feet away form the Bean.