Court backs Minnesotan, throws out 'expressive' permits at parks

[The Northerner]

A federal appeals court has thrown out National Park Service rules requiring a Minnesota man to get a permit before distributing religious materials at Mount Rushmore National Memorial.

In the ruling released Friday, the court said the rules were unconstitutional and violated Michael Boardley's free-speech rights.

Boardley sued the U.S. Interior Department, National Park Service and five federal officials in November 2007 after he was told he would need a permit to distribute "gospel tracts" at the monument.

A federal judge ruled in March 2009 that Mount Rushmore did not violate Boardley's constitutional rights. Boardley appealed.

Messages left for National Park Service spokesmen in Washington, D.C., and at Mount Rushmore were not immediately returned.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/local/100152069.html

[arbusto_baboso]

1. Of course, that also means I'm free to rip up the gospel tracts in front of Mr. Proselytizer.

Freedom of speech is double-edged.

[av8rdave]

2. Indeed it is.

I for one am glad he prevailed. Free speech doesn't always mean sane or pleasant speech!

[arbusto_baboso]

4. Exactly. But protect it we must.

We wouldn't want our own speech being restrained, would we?

[av8rdave]

6. Completely agree!

[joeybee12]

3. Yup...n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Let's hope it also means that!

Could turn into a case of IOKIYAC

[Ikonoklast]

7. Too bad I can't go on vacation and be left alone by the god-botherers.

I hope someone stands next to him and hands out Korans.

[DBoon]

8. I'd settle for the "Bhagavad-Gita"

Where are the Hare Krishnas when you need them?

[Ikonoklast]

9. For some reason, those guys never bothered me.

Years ago, I got invited back to their place for a nice vegetarian dinner, and a good discussion about what it means to be human.

They never told me that I was doomed to Hell for all eternity because I didn't embrace their religious philosophy.


I liked that.