Free speech arguments where we least expect them.

by nicolaou 10 Replies latest jw friends

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    original link: . http://www.kentuckynewera.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200110/16+Free-speech-10-16-01_news.html+20011016+news

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Who will be the one to draw the line?
    And, frankly, why must we have someone draw a line at all?

    The issue is this: a small Ohio town requires a permit for people and organizations desiring to go door-to-door in its neighborhoods. On the surface, that sounds fair enough. The permits are free, no one has ever been turned down for one and officials argue that the procedure protects the city's residents "from fraud and undue annoyance in their homes."

    Here's the rub: the Jehovah's Witnesses are saying that the procedure is violating their freedom of speech and that the 3-year-old law was, in fact, designed to limit their ministry, a faith that finds members routinely gong door-to-door, giving out free literature and recruiting new followers.

    Ministers disdain the notion that their practice is on a constitutional par with peddlers of kitchen gadgets.

    It is something that could happen in Hopkinsville, in Cadiz or in Elkton.

    Since the law's passage, both sides have been in court – on the local level, in U.S. District Court and in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    And now, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal.

    It's a contentious issue and the cheering sections on both sides will be loud: here are some classic freedom of speech arguments with separation of church and state issues thrown in on the side.

    It should surprise no one that our own seat will be in the bleachers arguing for free speech. We know, however, the growing need for privacy and a community's need to protect its citizens from fraud and undue annoyance.

    It promises to be an interesting fight.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.do-not-call.org

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Personally, I expect the Dubs to win.

    Not that I'd want them to, but because of constitutional limits on the "control" of religion by the state. Morons have to be allowed to be morons.

  • Xena
    Xena

    After browsing your website I would have to say this looks right up your alley ...and I have to wonder what side you would be on...weighing the rights of the neighborhood against the right of Freedom of Speech.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Fair comment Xena.

    Do I think that Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to preach from door-to-door? Absolutely!

    However, as I point out at the dnc 'policy' page; "the freedom Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy to propagate their beliefs needs to be balanced by those with countering views.

    Especially in respect of Jehovah's Witnesses doorstep preaching activities, the rights of the preacher need to be weighed against the rights of the householder."

    Nic'

    http://www.do-not-call.org

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Nathan, et al,
    You're quite right Nathan...if the JWs win, and I expect them to, it's only because godless Caeear's judicial system is far too enlighted, noble-minded, tolerant and reverential of its duty to preserve and protect the freedoms of expression and even of the nuttiest of religions, for Brooklyn's addled gerontocrats ever to comprehend.

  • Xena
    Xena

    After looking further I noticed that ya'll use the "no trespassing" as your tool to deter the JW's...that certainly wouldn't qualify as a curtailment of their Free Speech.

    I was wondering about the letters that are mentioned (that you have volunteers distribute) and was suprised there wasn't an example of the ones used. Was this just an oversight on my part and/or did I miss them? (lol wouldn't be the first time I missed something!)

    Also I was wondering, and please let me know if this isn't the right forum to be asking you about this, about the news article you had where the woman won a trespassing lawsuit...was the liability on the JW org or the individuals who did the actual trespassing?

  • drahcir yarrum
    drahcir yarrum

    I'm not satisfied that this issue of permits restricts free speech at all. No more so than obtaining a permit to have a large gathering anywhere is restrictive. As long as the result is simply to inform the authorities for legitimate policing and safety activities.

    A community has a right to know who is personally visiting door to door. It is part of their responsibilty to protect citizens from danger, fraud and theft.

    As I understand the law being challenged, there is no denial to canvass involved. Simply a formality of registering in advance informing the authorities of ones presence.

    There are a growing number of restricted access residential communities in the U.S. prohibiting canvassing of any type. Will the Supreme Court by extension demand that canvassers be granted free access in gated communities?

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Hi drahcir yarrum,

    You said,

    I'm not satisfied that this issue of permits restricts free speech at all.

    I suppose I have some libertarian ideas, but to me the word "free" means "at libery; without restriction; without cost."

    ANY "freedom" that requires a permit (AKA a "tax stamp") is not a freedom but a license granted by the state. The requirement ao such a "permit" IS ITSELF a restriction.

    Freedoms are given up bit-by-bit, not all at once. You wake up one day and find that the freedoms your grandfather enjoyed no longer exist.

  • drahcir yarrum
    drahcir yarrum

    Nathan:

    I'm probably more libertarian in my thinking than I am anything else. I wouldn't view registering my intent to canvas a neighborhood for religious purposes, or otherwise as chipping away at a freedom anymore than being required to register to vote is chipping away at my freedom to vote. We have a constitutional right to free assembly and yet municipalities clearly have the power to require parade permits. So, I don't believe that registering ones intent to carry out an act and freedom to carry out that act are mutually exclusive. So on this one, we disagree.

    Drahcir bin Yarrum

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    drahcir bin yarrum, may your tribe increase!

    You spake thus

    So on this one, we disagree.

    But it doesn't have to be that way - you can change!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit