Another Ohio City Moves To Regulate Solicitors/JWs

by MadApostate 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  MadApostate

  Marion law lets residents keep solicitors off doorsteps

  Thursday, October 25, 2001
  Mary Beth Lane
  Dispatch Staff Reporter
  
  Oh no, is that the doorbell ringing again, just as you're sitting down to dinner?

  Soon, Marion residents won't have to take it anymore.

  Beginning in a month, they can enroll their names and addresses on a central directory, the Prohibited Address Listing. Special-interest groups, religious canvassers or door-to-door salespeople -- whoever does his or her work at the public's personal stoop -- will be required to avoid those households.

  Making households off limits to such visits -- from Ohio Citizen Action to Jehovah's Witnesses to Kirby Sweepers vacuum-cleaner sellers -- is either a victory for the targets of such solicitations or a slap in the face to those who say it abridges their First Amendment rights.

  The U.S. Supreme Court will sort out the question this session when it rules on the constitutionality of a similar door-to-door law in the village of Stratton, along the Ohio River in Jefferson County. The nation's high court this month agreed to hear the case. The Marion law is in part based on the embattled Stratton ordinance.

  The nine-member Marion City Council unanimously enacted the law Monday for the city of roughly 37,000 about 45 miles north of Columbus. Residents will embrace the measure, officials predicted.

  "The voice from the community was, 'We believe we have a right not to be solicited,' '' Marion Law Director Mark Russell said.

  He said the Prohibited Address Listing law is a natural companion to the federal provision that permits people to instruct telemarketers to remove them from their call lists.

  The city is overreacting, said a spokesman for Ohio Citizen Action, a public-advocacy and environmental group that has battled Marion over its right to canvass door-to-door.

  "If we knock on someone's door and they say no, we leave. (The law) seems like an excessive administrative step,'' said Kendall Jackson, the group's statewide field canvassing director.

  The debate in Marion began with Ohio Citizen Action, which has been active in publicizing environmental contamination at sites in the nearby River Valley school district. Earlier this year, Citizen Action filed a constitutional challenge to the city's permit schedule.
  In an out-of-court settlement in April, the city extended door-to- door peddling, canvassing and soliciting times by two hours, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and paid Ohio Citizen Action $25,000.

  The deal rankled City Council and prompted the effort to establish the listing. "I asked to be first on the list,'' said council member Aimee Davis, who said she resents Ohio Citizen Action.
  "I have nothing against solicitations from our community. I have a huge problem with a group that comes to town and demands their way.''

  The new law will affect any entity now required to obtain a city permit, a process that includes a criminal-background check. Permit holders also must carry a photo- identification badge.

  Children 16 and younger who are on school or club fund-raising missions, and political candidates are exempt from the permits and the Prohibited Address Listing requirements.

  Violations of the new law are misdemeanors punishable by a maximum fine of $50 per household visit.

  The law is fair, city Safety Service Director Dale Osborn said, because it applies to everyone. Osborn's office issues door-to-door permits now and will be responsible for maintaining the list of off-limits households.

  "People really don't like them coming,'' he said. "It's Ohio Citizen Action, the Kirby Sweeper guys. We do get a lot of complaints on the Kirby Sweeper guys.''

  Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings that both upheld door-to-door solicitation and people's right to privacy in their homes, said law professor Kevin F. O'Neill, a First Amendment expert.

  So, in the Stratton case "It's difficult to predict what the court would do,'' said O'Neill, who teaches at Cleveland State University.

  Jehovah's Witnesses are challenging the Stratton law, arguing that it violates First Amendment guarantees to free speech and exercise of religion. Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. of U.S. District Court in Columbus and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati previously upheld Stratton's law.

  Ohio State University law professor David Goldberger, also a First Amendment scholar, has offered to help Jehovah's Witnesses in their Supreme Court case.

  The U.S. Supreme Court will probably rule by summer.

  Copyright © 2001, The Columbus Dispatch
• 

  Rex B13

  They allow 16 and under? I wonder if Stratton's law has this provision?
  How much you want to bet that this results in JW kids doing the door-to-door while mom/dad sits in the car drinking coffee?
  Rex
• 

  metatron

  My reading of the appeal suggested that while the Society
  may win the Stratton case, the idea of a prohibited list
  may be on very solid grounds legally. Thus, with some effort,
  JWs could be banned from a huge number of doors or face
  a local fine.

  metatron
• 

  MadApostate

  From what I've been able to gather, Marion's law differs from Stratton's only in the exceptions to political and the under-16ers (for schools/clubs).

  Even Stratton has the Prohibited-Call List.

  The Stratton Case decision will be very interesting. I believe there is a good chance that the anthrax scare, new terrorism prevention measures, etc. all combine to create a mentality that citizens have the right to ask their local governments to establish reasonable procedures to identify and keep record of people who are soliciting entire communities in organized fashions. The Stratton and Marion procedures do not prevent JWs, or anyone else from going door-to-door to freely express themselves religiously or otherwise. The local ordinances merely say that such activities cannot be performed anonymously, which in my opinion is reasonable. Why should JWs, or others, have the right to intrude into the private sanctuary (home) of individual citizens, identify the occupants, and at the same time have the right to do so without reciprocating?

  Calling at private homes is distinguishable from someone preaching in a public park or on the public sidewalk where the audience has the ability to maintain an equal degree of anonymity.

  I give a slight edge to Stratton to win this case, with possibly the court restricting how much personal info can be required up front durng the permitting process.

  One things for sure IMO. The decision will not be unanimous. The USSC will split on this one, and the opinions should make for good constitutional law study.
• 

  MadApostate

  A number of news articles have been written about the Stratton Case, and most have been posted in one thread or another.

  However, this article does one of the better jobs of outlining the legal issues which face the USSC:

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

  Tuesday, October 16, 2001

  Court to rule on key church, state issue

  U.S. Supreme Court to consider preaching door to door without permit

  The Associated Press

  WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to confront a particularly tough separation of church and state issue by deciding whether a town can require permits from Jehovah's Witnesses or others who want to solicit door-to-door.
  Jehovah's Witnesses routinely go door-to-door to distribute literature and recruit believers. A village ordinance in Stratton, Ohio, requires members of the faith -- and others, from door-to-door salesmen to politicians rounding up votes -- to get the mayor's permission before soliciting and to display the permit for homeowners who ask to see it.

  Jehovah's Witnesses sued the village in a church-state case with broad free-speech implications, and the justices agreed Monday to hear their appeal of a lower court's decision for Stratton.

  "Permission to preach comes from God and not man," said Paul Polidoro, attorney for Jehovah's Witnesses, who have not solicited door-to-door in Stratton during the three years the permits have been required.

  Village leaders said permits are free and nobody has ever been denied one. The ordinance is reasonable in "weighing the First Amendment rights of canvassers against the right of homeowners to security, privacy and peacefulness in their homes," they told the Supreme Court.

  The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees both free speech and the free exercise of religion. An appellate court ruled the ordinance does not discriminate against Witnesses because it demands the same permit of everybody.

  The Supreme Court probably will hear the case early next year, with a ruling expected by summer. The justices restricted the issue to the First Amendment ramifications of requiring approval for all door-to-door advocacy, including political pamphleteering.

  Stratton requires people planning solicitations to divulge to the mayor names, addresses for the past five years and names and addresses of their affiliations. A homeowner can demand to see the permit, and violators can be charged with misdemeanors.

  Lawyers for the Jehovah's Witnesses said if church members were to complete permit requests, they would lose the right of citizens to practice their religion anonymously.

  The court handled a related issue in 1995. Justices ruled that Ohio could not fine a woman for distributing unsigned leaflets opposing a proposed local school tax.

  "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 7-2 court.

  The Supreme Court handled door-to-door solicitation cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1930s and 1940s.

  This case is broader, applying to all solicitors including candidates for office.

  "This is a tricky one," said Gregory Magarian, who teaches constitutional law at Villanova University. "The x factor is how far is the court going to go in saying it's OK for the city to protect privacy in the home this way."

  Church lawyers said similar permit requirements have popped up in other jurisdictions over the years. Neither the church nor First Amendment scholars keep track of how many localities have such requirements.

  U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. ruled in 1999 that Stratton could not limit activity from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., as it initially tried to do. He ordered that stipulation to be changed to reasonable hours but upheld the permitting process.

  The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that the ordinance does not discriminate because it put the same requirements on all people, regardless of their message or purpose.

  Stratton should not be stopped from "protecting its residents from fraud and undue annoyance in their homes," the court said.

  Any of the fewer than 300 residents of Stratton can notify the village that they do not want to be solicited.

  The case is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al., 00-1737.
• 

  MadApostate

  Here are some selected excerpts from posts over at WOL re the Stratton Case, as well as leads on other cities which have restricted the door-to-door work.

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

  it's definitely interesting to keep track of these legal issues and how it affects the preaching work. here in miami, iwe have coral gables (zoned as a separate city, but still within metropolitan miami-dade), part of which falls in my congregation's territory. earlier this year, they issued an ordinance which basically made it illegal for us to go door to door there at all.

  the society was able to appeal the ordinance and after a few months, we were able to go back to preaching door to door in that area. but technically, we still can't bring up the donations. at our last service meeting they announced that a further appeal was being sought to allow us to request donations, but that the city officials had not gotten back in touch with the society. so we have been instructed not to make any mention of the contribution until the third return visit.

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

  We had a similar case that never went to court. A local community known as Kenneth City wanted to require us to carry official cards showing we were authorized to go door to door there. After discussions with the city overseer, they agreed to let us call the police department anytime we were going to preach there. At first, they were very strict with it. We had to tell them exactly where we would be, how many were going to be there and for what period of time. But, as the years passed and city officials changed they lightened up a little. In fact, sometimes it was funny because you would call and they would almost be annoyed asking "So, why are you telling us?" then we would have to remind them of our agreement. Recently, it seems that they have basically told us not to bother calling anymore. In fact, one of our sisters would actually go into the Kenneth City police station to tell them in person. Now for the last couple of years that sister has had a regular magazine route call with the police chief! Even when the other workers there were a little hesitant about her being there, the chief would come out and tell them to let her in his office because he wanted to see what she had for him.

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

  For updates on the Supreme Court case, you can follow it at:

  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/00-1737.htm

  For atleast 20 years, the city of Norcross, Georgia, has required JW's to notify them anytime they will work within their city limits.

  And since the 70's, Avondale Estates has prohibited our work.

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

  There is a small town which is a suburb of Milwaukee called River Hills. It is extremely rich & very exclusive. We were not allowed to preach there, the brothers took it to court & after a 3yr battle (which ended about 10 or 12 years ago) we are now allowed to preach there. We have to go to the police station where they make a photocopy of our territory card, mark down when we will be working in that area & the make of our cars & license plate numbers. We are not allowed in on Sundays. The society decided not to push it & let them have that concession.

  There are a few other expensive towns & villages in the area where we have to either call in to the police or report in person. This has been going on like this at least since 1985 when I moved into the area. I don't know how long it was going on before that.

  Men may try to stop us, but this is not a message that can be stopped. It is from Jehovah & we will continue until he says to stop.

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

  We had a guest speaker at our Hall today (11-18-01/West Gilbert, AZ congregation) who filled in a lot of the details regarding the lawsuit over the permit issue in Stratton, Ohio. Bro. Lewis works in the legal department at Patterson and gave our Public Talk and then a 30 min. talk after the WT study. I'll try to accurately summarize the points he made :

  Regarding the permit issue :

  Initially, the local laws involving the permit required the following conditions to be met for any door-to-door activity :

  Background check on the applicant for the previous 5 years.

  Activity restricted to Mon-Fri from 9am-5pm. NO door-to-door permitted during evenings, weekends or holidays.

  List of addresses to be called on to be provided to the authorities in advance.

  Householders could check a box on a form supplied by the city. The box specifically and exclusively mentioned JWs. Checking the box would indicate that the householder did not want JWs to call on them, and we would have to comply.

  In appeals to Federal District courts, a couple of provisions of the Stratton law were overturned, specifically those which restricted the hours of activity and which provided a box to check to eliminate visits from JWs. The former was considered "unduly restrictive" and the latter was considered "discriminatory" since the Witnesses were being singled out. However, the District Courts upheld the permit itself along with the background check. The fact that the permit is free of charge was a major factor in their decision.

  One thing that was largely ignored by the press, according to Bro. Lewis, was that the Society appealed to the District Court to have the legal fees refunded for cost incurred up to that point in time. Even thought their ruling was only partially favorable, they agreed to the refund in full, awarding the Society approximately $54,000.

  The Slave decided to continue to pursue the case. Bro. Lewis explained that the background check could be used to prevent us from going door-to-door. There was no stipulation on what conditions would give the city just cause to deny the permit. For example, someone could conceivably be denied due to an old parking ticket. Also, some of the friends may have a criminal record for actions committed prior to coming into the truth--should they have to wait 5 years before they can go door-to-door?? Additionally, while we do use the laws of the land to further or protect our abilities to preach, from a Scriptural standpoint, we don't ask the goverment for permission to preach.

  In mid-October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, a major first step. (Sometimes the Court refuses to hear a case, considering it unnecessary) Bro. Lewis says that they put it on a 'fast track,' which means that the litigants (the Society and the city) had 45 days to submit their written arguments. He says that it is expected that the Court will hear the case in February 2002, and a decision is expected by June 2002.

  Bro. Lewis says that the SC will consider the case under a very narrow spectrum of the law. They (the SC) do NOT consider this to be a lawsuit over religious freedom. Rather, from their standpoint it has to do with the right of citizens to practice "anonymous pamphleteering." Bro. Lewis explained that there was a case some time back (also in Ohio) where a woman was distributing leaflets door-to-door describing her objections to a proposed school tax increase. The city told her to desist, and demanded that she get a permit. She appealed on the basis that she should be able to distribute information anonymously. So, apparently, the crux of the issue from the Supreme Court's standpoint will be regarding whether or not the permit infringes on privacy rights. (Interesting...)
• 

  outnfree

  Bro. Lewis explained that the background check could be used to prevent us from going door-to-door. There was no stipulation on what conditions would give the city just cause to deny the permit. For example, someone could conceivably be denied due to an old parking ticket.[bold mine]

  Not likely. And, anyway, should any HONEST JW have a old, unpaid parking ticket on the rolls? No. And if, by some oversight, an honest JW DID have an unpaid parking ticket on the books, wouldn't s/he be happy to be reminded of his/her obligation to take care of the matter with Caesar, pay the fine, and clear up the stain on his/her good reputation as a model citizen?

  Also, some of the friends may have a criminal record for actions committed prior to coming into the truth--should they have to wait 5 years before they can go door-to-door??[bold mine]

  Why not? Just because the local elders feel the former criminal 'friends' are repentant and have turned their lives around doesn't mean the secular authorities (placed in their relative positions by Jehovah God Himself, mind you? -- is that the right 'light' at present? ) have to agree. Becoming a witness does NOT absolve one of paying one's debt to Society, whatever the citizenry of a country demands as said debt. (In fact, in the not so distant past, a prospective Witness would have been encouraged to turn him/herself in if they were guilty of a crime in order to have a clean standing before the community and God.)

  Additionally, while we do use the laws of the land to further or protect our abilities to preach, from a Scriptural standpoint, we don't ask the goverment for permission to preach.

  From both a Scriptural AND a WTS standpoint, door-to-door work is NOT the only way to witness to the good news of the kingdom. Ex-cons can telephone witness or write letters (to their former pals in prison?) or informal witness at work or in malls, on street corners, at train or metro stations, etc.

  Or am I completely off-base here?

  outnfree

  When the truth is found to be lies
  and all the joy within you dies ... -- Darby Slick, Somebody to Love