Your Opinion on Free Speech Zones

[jtb1127]

A man is suing Minneapolis for its attempt to restrict his activism to "free speech zones". Article from Fox. I couldn't find an article that wasn't from a Christian news site so I figured Fox was the best I could do.

Johnson was arrested for trespassing at the event in 2009, the first year he was denied a booth. The charges were later dropped. In 2010, the board, which enforces regulations at the 42-acre public park, granted Johnson permission to hand out Bibles. The parade organizers went to federal court to seek an injunction, which was denied by District Judge John Tunheim.
Although Johnson and his family went to the 2010 event and handed out Bibles without incident, the city agency and parade organizers were focused on a suggestion Tunheim had offered in a footnote of his denial of the injunction. For 2011, they set up the "free speech zones" that Tunheim thought would be a reasonable suggestion and a "drop box" where people could place literature.
Johnson skipped last year's event, but went to federal court on Friday to file a suit he hopes will give him unrestricted access to this year's event.
Dot Belstler, executive director of Twin Cities Pride, said Johnson is free to attend the festival and "tell everyone that Jesus loves them." But she said Johnson will not be allowed to hand out Bibles outside of the designated zones during this year's event on June 23-24.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/0...ver-no-pride-policy-at-midwest/#ixzz1r70SGdKQ

Free speech zones are designated areas where people can exercise their free speech. They're mostly seen during events like this one and were on the news after their use during the 2004 DNC. That's my non-biased opinion.

Is it constitutional to confine activists to these areas? Is it permissible to use free speech zones? The first question is about the legality of FSZs while the second is about their morality, in your opinion.
I'm talking more about the constitutionality of free speech zones and whether you support them than your opinion on this specific case, but feel free to comment on that as well.

 

[classical_hero]

Clearly the US constitution is under attack. Free Speech is given to everyone everywhere. It is not free if it is restricted to certain areas. Sometimes Free Speech has to be unpopular.

"Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection." Neal Boortz

 

[Leonel]

It was my impression all of America was a free speech zone. How silly I was.

 

[innonimatu]

Hey, you might as well tax them. It'll grow the GDP!

 

[Labtec600]

Some of us have jobs and have to work. We dont need to be tied up in traffic because a bunch of protestors are in the way.

 

[Cutlass]

Free speech trumps most other rights. It should not be confined.

 

[warpus]

"Free speech zones" is something I'd expect to see in Pakistan or China, not the "leader" of the free world.

 

[kramerfan86]

Free speech and "right to be in a given location" are two separate issues. Free speech doesnt mean I have the right to stomp into a private event or an event that requires registration and payment to participate.

 

[warpus]

Free speech and "right to be in a given location" are two separate issues. Free speech doesnt mean I have the right to stomp into a private event or an event that requires registration and payment to participate.

Of course not - that would be "free entry" not "free speech"

 

[Camikaze]

Well obviously free speech is already limited in that you can't trespass onto private property under the excuse of exercising your free speech. When public places are being used for purposes that have restricted or conditional entry, then I don't see why that shouldn't apply too. As a completely random example, if a local government decided to put on an open-air cinema event, then if a group of protestors/activists tried to disrupt the screening by standing in front of the screen or something, it'd be entirely reaosnable for security to remove them. If you go into a public courtroom and start protesting, you're be charged with contempt.

There are obviously reasonable reasons to restrict protesting in public spaces.

 

[warpus]

There are obviously reasonable reasons to restrict protesting in public spaces.

I agree, but I have heard of cases where protesters were put in a cage, out of sight, at a political event.

That's a bit too much, as it makes the protest virtually ineffective.

There's got to be a middle ground where people are allowed to protest without disrupting the event AND without being put in a cage somewhere out of view.

 

[Glassfan]

Obviously there's more to this story. The mention of a booth reminds me of the occupy folks trying to create permanent camps in public parks. The occupiers claim that their freedoms are being crushed, but the authorities are on about illegal latrines, tents and construction.

 

[Flying Pig]

We already have quite a lot of non-free-speech zones. It's OK to say at a dinner party that you think priests are all wicked, but it would be another story if you decided to say that in the middle of Westminster Abbey. Non-story.

 

[Ajidica]

If anyone is interested, here is a more informative article from the local paper.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/146037555.html
I feel that the Park Board and the festival organizers may have overstepped their bounds here a bit.

 

[Camikaze]

There's only finite amount of space within the park. The festival organisers shouldn't be obliged to allow any particular person some of it. It seems reasonable to me that if the park is considered private property for the purposes of the festival (and presumably they've had to pay or hire out the park for this purpose), then the festival organisers should be able to restrict who has access or who can set up a stall (unless any anti-discrimination legislation applies, but that's not the contention here). I'm not sure how anything else can really be considered to be overstepping their bounds.

And I'm not sure I agree with warpus that there must be some place on this private property (if it is so regarded) for protest.

I don't know, perhaps the local authorities have a duty to make allowances for free speech a condition of hiring out public spaces.

 

[jtb1127]

And I'm not sure I agree with warpus that there must be some place on this private property (if it is so regarded) for protest.

Since when does a public place become private property when a group is using it?

 

[Camikaze]

It doesn't become private property, but the contention is that it is treated as private property:

A police officer allegedly told Johnson that the park was "private property" that day, and Johnson was arrested when they didn't leave.

It seems reasonable to me for that to be the case if the park is being hired out by a group for a particular event. Local authorities would have the right to impose certain conditions on the contract if they deemed it necessary (as the Park Board apparently then tried to do).

If you hire a venue, unless it's in the contract, why should you be forced to allow protestors to enter it?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yet another argument against private property!

 

[warpus]

And I'm not sure I agree with warpus that there must be some place on this private property (if it is so regarded) for protest.

IMO it depends on the venue.

If it's really small and there's no room for any protesters, yeah, keep them out of sight, as they will disrupt the event to unacceptable levels. Allow them to have their protest near the entrance somewhere where it wouldn't interfere with arriving patrons.

But say there's a parade or some sort of a political procession (A senator or presidential hopeful slowly being driven through the city so he/she can wave at supporters or whatever), forcing protesters into a cage 2 blocks away? That's unacceptable. That's like saying: "You can voice your dissent, but you can do it in a dungeon where nobody will see or hear you"

In the end it should be a balance between event disruption and the ability for someone to say "I disagree with this"

 

[JohnRM]

"Free speech zones" is something I'd expect to see in Pakistan or China, not the "leader" of the free world.

The United States can hardly claim to be the "leader of the free world."