Posted: Apr 05, 2012 11:16 pm
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.
So any law-abiding member of the public can attend. If the event were held in a private location, I would agree with you.
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.
