Court throws out 'expressive' permits at parks

[cynatnite]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20100806/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_mount_rushmore_free_speech

[MineralMan]

1. Aha! A great opportunity.

Someone in the area should go to the park, stand next to this guy, and hand out leaflets on atheism. Pretty soon the guy would go away.

[AnArmyVeteran]

8. Let him distribute them but fine him $200 for each flier on the ground.

If he was fined $200 for each flier that ended up as litter he might reconsider putting hid trash on peoples' cars or bothering people by confronting them. I wish Christians would read their Bibles. It says "take the plank out of one's own eye before trying to remove a splinter from another".

Fanaticism will one day destroy our country...

[BeFree]

2. Yeah, well

As much as I love freedom of speech, keeping advertisements out of the Parks means Coca-Cola is banned, too.

Selling shit in and on National Park lands should be banned. People go to the mall to get the "Buy" message, Parks are not a commercial enterprise and laws to protect the Parks from outside influences that would tend to disrupt the Parks meanings are needed. Parks are refuges from the rest of the world.

So, Mister Boardley, I suggest you take your religious materials and stick them up your ass until you leave the Park lands.

[Silent3]

3. Certainly permits shouldn't be required for specific types of literature...

...and I'd call it unfair discrimination if this man was being required to get a permit just because the material he wanted to distribute was religious in nature.

I wouldn't be against a general rule, however, that restricted all types of distribution of literature within a nature preserve. Not only is there a high probability of such material turning into litter, but being harassed by people trying to foist pamphlets off on you is exactly the kind of thing I think most people would want to escape from in a nature preserve. As long as such restrictions were applied evenly and fairly, and plenty of other venues remain for such expressive activities, I think those restrictions could be beneficial, and constitutional.

[X_Digger]

6. Wouldn't be constitutional.

The 'compelling government interest' isn't met (deterring littering isn't a strong enough reason to infringe a constitutional right), it's not the 'least restrictive means' (you could ask that the person distributing literature needs to clean up any pamphlets s/he sees dropped.)

Not being 'harassed' by people expressing their religion isn't a right, especially not in a place owned by the people. Additionally, the "plenty of other venues" argument sounds suspiciously like "separate but equal".

[Silent3]

7. You could be right, I don't claim constitutional expertise here.

Not being 'harassed' by people expressing their religion isn't a right...

Not being harassed (period, full stop) is a right, however, regardless of whether the subject is religion or auto mechanics. I can't stand in front of someone's house shouting about either subject for hours on end, day and night, and call that protected free speech.

I certainly don't believe in giving expression extra freedom just because it's religious expression.

Whether standing around in large nature preserve (and not just any public park, like a fairly crowded and noisy city park) where people go to escape from civilization, trying to hawk religious tracts (or political literature, or sales fliers for that matter) rises to the level of harassment or disturbing the peace, I can't say. I'd be happier if people wouldn't or couldn't do that in a place like a major national park, but I do care about free speech quite a bit. I wouldn't want to see anything that represented a "slippery slope" toward greater restrictions, and I wouldn't be all that bothered if courts decided this needed to be protected speech.

[X_Digger]

10. Yup, the price of being able to say the things you like..

.. is having to listen to the asshole spewing garbage across the street.

So-called 'time, place, and manner' restrictions on speech have often been held constitutional, if content-neutral. However, an anti-leafletting ban (in the interest of litter prevention) was held unconstitutional in Schneider v. New Jersey. A park (national or otherwise) is usually considered a 'traditional public forum', which enjoys a stricter protection.

google "time, place, and manner" for some good reading material. There are some really fascinating cases to be explored.

eta: "harassment" in a public venue is hard to objectively define. A speaker chasing you down the street screaming at you would qualify, but standing on a soap box spewing vile rhetoric in the middle of the day likely would not. You can 'feel' harassed, but not have it rise to the legal level required for prosecution. There's a 'reasonableness' standard that has application.

[EFerrari]

4. Mount Rushmore must be too pissed to answer the phone.

[pinboy3niner]

9. They're debating an appropriate response

Lincoln wants to issue a proclamation, while Jefferson prefers a declaration. :)

[jaxx]

5. Reminds me of when the Moonies lived at O'Hare.

:evilgrin: