WTBTS vs Stratton Ohio: Sixth Circuit Opinion
by sf 8 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
mindfield
Aaaah, nuts...
Well, it was worth a try...
-
Yerusalyim
Am I reading this right? The court upholds the law and the JW's still have to register BUT, the village has to pay the JW's legal fees in this matter? If so that's absolutely crazy. The JW's can afford to pay their own legal fees.
YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"] -
mikepence
Isn't this the case that was appealled to a higher court?
XJW User Submitted News & Views at http://xjwnews.com
-
YoYoMama
Another victory for Jehovah!
Gal. 6:7
-
metatron
Before you declare victory, read carefully. The Village has to pay
39 thousand bucks - but (and this is very important) - the court
affirmed that the JWs must register and fill out forms, etc.If this judgement is affirmed by the Supreme Court - or if they
simply let it stand without review, it would be a fantastic
DEFEAT for the Watchtower Society. It could cripple door to
door preaching.metatron
-
expatbrit
This appears to be the crux:
Because the ordinance is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague and it is narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests, we affirm the district court's judgment finding the majority of the ordinance constitutionally permissible. And because the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, we affirm that judgment as well.
However, for us non-Americans, can someone explain the significance and level of this ruling. Is it open to further appeal in higher courts, or has the fat lady sung, as it were.If it is all over, it appears a significant defeat for the Watchtower, because now there is a precedent for any place to enact similar legislation without having to go through all this legal stuff.
Expatbrit
-
waiting
Thanks metatron,
I took the time to read it (kinda) carefully. I found the following most interesting:
Quote
5) trespassed while canvassing, or (6) ceased to possess the qualifications required to obtain a Solicitation Permit.(2) No fee is required to obtain a permit. Upon obtaining a permit, the canvassers may canvass any private residence in the Village between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm, provided the owner of the residence has not filed a No Solicitation Form with the Mayor's Office and has not posted a No Solicitation Sign on his property. Prior to this litigation, a No Solicitation Form contained a list of various organizations next to which the resident could place a checkmark to indicate the organizations the resident wished to be excluded from this general prohibition. While the No Solicitation Form listed several organizations by name, the only religious organization it listed by name was the Church of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If individuals covered by the ordinance fail to comply with these requirements, they could be charged with a misdemeanor of the fourth degree (end quote)Sooooo, if a resident went up to the court house, he could sign a form for no solicitors ahead of time. Interesting. However, the village took the specific name of Jehovah's Witnesses off their ordinance.
Quote
creating additional deterrents for canvassers, including Jehovah's Witnesses, who are considering ignoring a resident's wishes and canvassing the resident's home. A Jehovah's Witness is more likely to respect the resident's wishes not to be canvassed when a criminal penalty--albeit a light penalty--is connected to such conduct in addition to the threat of civil action. Thus, the penalty attached to canvassing the house of a resident with a No Solicitation Sign more effectively promotes the Village's interest. The ordinance's registration requirements also likely deter Jehovah's Witnesses from canvassing homes with No Solicitation Signs and forms because they are aware that the Village now has information--name, address, organization or cause--helpful in apprehending someone who ignores a resident's wishes (end quote)
Quote:
1. Whether the Ordinance is Unconstitutional
We reach the same conclusion with respect to plaintiffs' free exercise challenges. Other than arguments that the ordinance fails strict scrutiny, plaintiffs offer no arguments for why the ordinance violates their free exercise rights.
Instead, they cite a handful of Supreme Court cases all of which, they claim, stand for the proposition that the "Supreme Court has continuously held that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be required to obtain a permit in order to engage in door-to-door religious speech." And that "in not one [of those cases] did the Supreme Court hold that Jehovah's Witnesses must obtain a permit prior to engaging in door-to-door dissemination of Bible-based ideas or literature."
That is probably because few of those cases involved an ordinance requiring such a permit. (end quote)
That judge had a good sense of sarcasm, eh?
Interesting to see if this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court - as the WTBTS has a lot more to lose than $39,000.
waiting
-
joelbear
This case has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court. That was reported as news here a few weeks ago.
Joel