Preachers' rights not violated (in First Ammendment Zones), judge says

[Ediacara]

Preachers' rights not violated, judge says

By Heather May
The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake City is justified in restricting street preachers who sermonize against the LDS Church to "standing zones" this weekend during the LDS Church conference, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

In an 18-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell said demonstration zones do not violate preachers' First Amendment rights. She refused to grant a temporary restraining order that the Pennsylvania-based World Wide Street Preachers' Fellowship requested.

The fellowship filed an emergency appeal with the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later Thursday. It asked the court to issue an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the speech zones and a portion of its disturbing-the-peace ordinance that outlaws an "unreasonably loud noise."

"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even temporarily, constitutes irreparable injury," the appeal states. "Salt Lake City's speech restrictions are not content-neutral, are not narrowly tailored, do not leave ample alternatives for speech and are over-broad."

More at the Salt Lake Tribune

[freetobegay]

1. Since when do we need a judge to judge what is free speech?

What the hell is this Country coming to?

[northernsoul]

5. well, someone has to interpret the 1st Amendment

For example: if a bunch of judges hadn't decided that flag-burning was indeed constitutionally protected speech (Texas v. Johnson), we'd have a good-hearted, broad-minded </sarcasm> Texas Sherrif determining what was or wasn't free speech.

The first amendment is not written in such a way that makes it completely clear how it is supposed to be applied to every situation that comes up in all the complexities of American life.

Q: If some bigot stands on the public sidewalk just yards away from your front door and screams a variety of racial / sexual epithets mentioning you by name through a megaphone at 3 a.m. - is it Free Speech that you have no recourse to prevent or is it harassment of the worst sort and should be criminally prosecuted?

A: It's the latter (as long as there's an applicable local law), but we don't know that just from looking at the First Amendment on its face. We need the judiciary to articulate legal doctrines that will advance the law based on genuine controversies.

[ixion]

2. I would beg to differ with Judge Tena

This whole 'Free Speech Zone' phenomena is scary and just plain wrong. But most of all, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Free Speech is not something that belongs in a Zone. It is fundamental right guaranteed to us by OUR constitution. The First Amendment does not say "Freedom of Speech, as long as it's in the Zone." :grr:

[BattyDem]

7. Exactly!

What's to prevent judges from saying that the First Amendment Zone is inside our own home ... and not in any public places?

According to our Constitution, the entire country is a First Amendment Zone ... at least it was until these bastards took over! There was no such thing as a "zone" before January 20, 2001 and I can't believe they've been allowed to get away with it for so long. Why aren't the Dems all over this? Why isn't the ACLU all over this? :grr:

[northernsoul]

8. that would go against all legal precedent

but, unfortunately, I can't put anything past a court dominated by Scalia and Thomas

[BattyDem]

9. That's why I'm scared and angry ...

These people will do anything and because they're being allowed to put people into zones, they're going to keep moving the zones further and further away from the source of the protest until finally, they'll be no point in protesting at all. :(

[bullimiami]

13. free speech zones?

,,,There was no such thing as a "zone" before January 20, 2001...

wrong.

bushies started it in texas when shrubby was guvna.

[northernsoul]

10. here's the rationale:

The government can restrict speech activities when there is a "compelling public interest" (usually the health and safety of the public, etc.) to do so. This is why making a bomb threat, engaging in verbal fraud, and the legendary "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater" activities are not constitutionally protected. However, the government's restriction on speech must be a minimal as possible to acheive the compelling interest goal, and cannot discriminate based on the content of the speech being restricted.

Personally, I think that these, 'Free Speech Zones', fail 1st Amendment muster on all counts and should be rolled back. Good luck getting the current Supreme Court to do so, however.

[xchrom]

3. facist america

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. And another thing

"restricting street preachers who sermonize against the LDS Church"

Do they restrict street preachers who sermonize against the XYZ Church, where XYZ ≠ LDS? If not, there's no way in hell such a thing can stand.

[northernsoul]

6. yep, the ordinance has to apply to all public speakers

regardless of the content of their message, also it must infringe upon speech rights only to the most minimal extent necessary to ensure the government's compelling interest (presumably public safety)

In other words, this law had better not restrict people from speaking any more than is necessary to ensure a legitimate public purpose and it had better apply to all speakers equally. This thing smells like it was crafted specifically to chill the speech of anti-LDSers.

[Occulus]

11. This is Utah

I strongly doubt it's any group other than the one mentioned.

edited to ask: What's the LDS church?

[graelent]

12. LDS = Church of Latter Day Saints

Better known as Mormons

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Bad news for the First Amendment.

Harrassment shouldn't be protected as free speech, but speech shouldn't be limited, either. It isn't only speech we want to hear that's protected.

[The Zanti Regent]

15. Are Mormons next?

Are they next in line to be persecuted?

[Democat]

16. Here is a biography on the judge who made the wrong decision

http://www.fedbar.org/utah-profile_campbell.pdf