at gay pride parade
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Weaver wrote:The Pride group leases the park for their activities - this completely over-rides any free speech rights Johnson has. They are well within their rights to say that nobody at their events is allowed to hand out materials at the event itself.
Unless expressly provided for in the permit, the Use & Event Permit does not grant the permit holder with any property rights to park property including but not limited to possessory rights, and the right to restrict access and use of any member of the general public on park property.
Erin wrote:Look at it the other way: if a religious organization held a public event in the same place with the same type of permit, I'm pretty sure most of us would call bullshit if an atheist was arrested for attending and asking people if they'd like free copies of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris.
Unless Religio-nut is violating harassment laws with the manner in which he approaches people, or there's a legal aspect of this case that I'm missing, the law is on his side here.
Shrunk wrote:Pride Executive Director Dot Belstler clarified that anybody, including Johnson, can "walk through the park and say what they want." Belstler said Johnson and other advocates of causes Pride deems inconsistent with their mission are simply banned from handing out materials outside of the "no pride zone," which this year, fittingly, will be renamed the "Minneapolis Park and Recreation area."
THWOTH wrote:I say let him hand out the Bible. The pages make excellent emergency toilet paper.
BrandySpears wrote:Erin wrote:Look at it the other way: if a religious organization held a public event in the same place with the same type of permit, I'm pretty sure most of us would call bullshit if an atheist was arrested for attending and asking people if they'd like free copies of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris.
Unless Religio-nut is violating harassment laws with the manner in which he approaches people, or there's a legal aspect of this case that I'm missing, the law is on his side here.
The city would not be infringing the rights of the atheist to protest by having the atheist behind a buffer-zone. Ex. Shirley Phelps Roper.
Erin wrote:BrandySpears wrote:Erin wrote:Look at it the other way: if a religious organization held a public event in the same place with the same type of permit, I'm pretty sure most of us would call bullshit if an atheist was arrested for attending and asking people if they'd like free copies of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris.
Unless Religio-nut is violating harassment laws with the manner in which he approaches people, or there's a legal aspect of this case that I'm missing, the law is on his side here.
The city would not be infringing the rights of the atheist to protest by having the atheist behind a buffer-zone. Ex. Shirley Phelps Roper.
Is that the same thing, though? The hypothetical atheist isn't participating in a protest, but attending a public event and offering free literature.
Erin wrote:BrandySpears wrote:Erin wrote:Look at it the other way: if a religious organization held a public event in the same place with the same type of permit, I'm pretty sure most of us would call bullshit if an atheist was arrested for attending and asking people if they'd like free copies of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris.
Unless Religio-nut is violating harassment laws with the manner in which he approaches people, or there's a legal aspect of this case that I'm missing, the law is on his side here.
The city would not be infringing the rights of the atheist to protest by having the atheist behind a buffer-zone. Ex. Shirley Phelps Roper.
Is that the same thing, though? The hypothetical atheist isn't participating in a protest, but attending a public event and offering free literature. Phelps-Roper pickets funerals, which are private affairs.
Erin wrote:Weaver wrote:The Pride group leases the park for their activities - this completely over-rides any free speech rights Johnson has. They are well within their rights to say that nobody at their events is allowed to hand out materials at the event itself.
I checked up on this, and that's not the case. While someone holding an event at the park has to apply for a permit and pay a fee, it doesn't give them property rights. From the Minneapolis Parks & Recreation Board guidelines:Unless expressly provided for in the permit, the Use & Event Permit does not grant the permit holder with any property rights to park property including but not limited to possessory rights, and the right to restrict access and use of any member of the general public on park property.
Shrunk wrote:Erin wrote:Weaver wrote:The Pride group leases the park for their activities - this completely over-rides any free speech rights Johnson has. They are well within their rights to say that nobody at their events is allowed to hand out materials at the event itself.
I checked up on this, and that's not the case. While someone holding an event at the park has to apply for a permit and pay a fee, it doesn't give them property rights. From the Minneapolis Parks & Recreation Board guidelines:Unless expressly provided for in the permit, the Use & Event Permit does not grant the permit holder with any property rights to park property including but not limited to possessory rights, and the right to restrict access and use of any member of the general public on park property.
They're not saying he can't enter the park. They're just setting rules of conduct for him while he is in the park participating in their event. I think the Supreme Court's authority supercedes that of the Minneapolis Parks and Rec Board, so time permitting I'll try find the actual decision being referenced here.
quixotecoyote wrote:
I think you have to deliberately fail to see the context in order to use that interpretation. He isn't handing out bibles because he thinks these people haven't heard of Christianity.
BrandySpears wrote:
Of course the atheist would be engaged in protest if he was handing out atheist literature at a religious gathering.
The Phelps picket from public property like sidewalks. They got their start picketing public parks known for cruising.
Erin wrote:I found the Supreme Court case referred to in the article Brandy linked, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston. From what I can tell, it holds that event organizers reserve the right to exclude groups from public demonstrations if the groups impart a message contradictory to the event's purpose. In Hurley, it specifically referred to an organization's right to not allow a group to march in a parade.
It doesn't look like the ruling applies here. Pride Fest can deny Johnson's application for a booth, but they can't prevent him from attending as a citizen. They even acknowledged that he can attend and say whatever he wants to the people there. So presumably they're okay with him quoting the Bible to attendees, but not with him offering the exact same thing in print form. What's the difference?
Look at it the other way: if a religious organization held a public event in the same place with the same type of permit, I'm pretty sure most of us would call bullshit if an atheist was arrested for attending and asking people if they'd like free copies of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris.
Unless Religio-nut is violating harassment laws with the manner in which he approaches people, or there's a legal aspect of this case that I'm missing, the law is on his side here.
Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to assemble and for groups to determine what message is actually conveyed to the public. Generally, the Court ruled that private organizations, even if they were planning on and had permits for a public demonstration, were permitted to exclude groups if those groups presented a message contrary to the one the organizing group wanted to convey. More specific to the case, however, the Court found that private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their demonstration, even if such a law had been written with the intent of preventing discrimination....
Justice Souter delivered the unanimous opinion of the court on June 19, 1995. The Court reasoned that, even though the Council did not have a narrow, set message that it was intending to convey, the parade nevertheless constituted a message that the Council had a right to protect. Noting that, while the Council had been fairly lenient in its guidelines for who they chose to allow in their parade, the Court said this did not necessarily mean that the Council waived its right to present its message in a way it saw fit. The right to speak, the Court reasoned, includes the right to determine "what not to say." Of primary concern to the Court was the fact that anyone observing the parade (which regularly gained a large number of spectators) could rationally believe that those involved in the parade were all part of an overriding message the Council was seeking to provide. In this vein, the unanimous Court said that the Council could not statutorily be prohibited from excluding the messages of groups it did not agree with. Effectively, the Council could not be forced to endorse a message against its will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurley_v._ ... _of_Boston
Erin wrote:That's why I draw a distinction between the two. You can picket a private event from public property. Nobody's saying Phelps-Roper's First Amendment rights are being infringed upon because she can't go into private events with Bibles or those ridiculous signs she carries around.
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest