fascinating case taking place now in ohio.
from http://www.jw-media.org/releases/default.htm
For Immediate Release
February 25, 2002U.S. Supreme Court to examine anonymity and free speech
Tomorrow the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments regarding whether it is constitutionally permissible for a municipality to impose preconditions on anyone who merely desires to speak with his neighbors about an issue they are interested in. Should anyone who wishes to advance a cause be required to obtain a permit from the local authorities and produce identification before being allowed to call from door to door? The Supreme Court will look closely at the right to speak without such restrictions under the provision known as "anonymous political discourse."
Professor of Law David A. Goldberger, a First Amendment scholar at Ohio State University, explains the significance of the case this way: "In this case, Stratton Ohio officials seek to require a permit to hold one-on-one conversations about religion and politics. A loss by the Jehovah's Witnesses in their efforts to go door-to-door on a religious mission without the gratuitous involvement of the government could ultimately mean that the government could require a permit to walk up to strangers on a public sidewalk to talk to them."
"This basic right includes any cause-related speech," comments attorney Paul Polidoro, who will be presenting the oral arguments on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses. He points out that "it has never been the desire of Jehovah's Witnesses to accomplish their public ministry anonymously; in fact, most Witnesses identify themselves early on when engaging a householder in conversation. But should a secular authority determine the appropriateness of extending or withholding permission from someone who simply wants to speak by going from door to door?"
Internationally, Jehovah's Witnesses take seriously the God-given commission to share the Bible's hope with all humanity. Collectively, they spend more than a billion hours each year in carrying out that assignment. The message they bring has comforted many listeners. Of the various forms that their ministry takes, the Witnesses view door-to-door calls as an essential way of reaching every individual. The decision whether to engage in a conversation has always been a personal one for the resident to make. Jehovah's Witnesses feel that the decision should remain a personal, as opposed to a governmental, matter.
"We highly esteem our freedom of speech, as our words are an intrinsic part of our worship," stated organizational spokesman J.R. Brown. "For this reason, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot conscientiously ask for any human's permission to speak about God's Kingdom."
http://library.northernlight.com/FE20020225890000060.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0
In a small Ohio town, a fight over the right to knock on doorssee also: http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/docket/00-1737fx.htmlStory Filed: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:36 PM EST
WASHINGTON, Feb 26, 2002 (The Christian Science Monitor via COMTEX) -- If you want to solicit door to door in Stratton, Ohio, you have to get a permit. The rule is as simple as that, say village officials.
Permits are easily obtained from the mayor's office. They cost nothing. No one has ever been turned down.
But that's not the problem, according to lawyers for a group of Jehovah's Witnesses seeking to spread the gospel in Stratton. They insist that Americans have a constitutional right to walk door to door and talk with residents without having to first apply for permission. They also say people have a right to do it anonymously - without being forced to disclose information to local authorities.
Today, the Jehovah's Witnesses' battle against Stratton's solicitation ordinance arrives at the US Supreme Court in a case that will determine whether the permit requirement is a permissible regulation of door-to-door activity or an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.
It is a subject of great interest to cities and towns across the nation who are looking for ways to protect residents from possible fraud by con artists and the nuisance of uninvited doorstep solicitors - including those on a mission from God.
Free-speech advocates view with alarm the growing number of local ordinances restricting such door-to-door activity, noting that the quality of free expression in America is under siege by municipalities seeking convenience, safety, and privacy at the expense of First Amendment liberty.
"The last decade has witnessed a dramatic surge in the number and severity of antisolicitation laws," says Von Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer, in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Municipal officials increasingly believe there are few, if any, constraints on their ability to severely limit door-to-door evangelism in their jurisdictions," Mr. Keetch says.
The issue is not new. The US Supreme Court in the 1930s and 1940s struck down a series of municipal ordinances aimed at preventing religious groups from spreading their messages door to door. The Jehovah's Witnesses fought the bulk of those battles and is again in the spotlight.
At the center of the Stratton case is the village's requirement that prior to receiving a permit all would-be door-to-door solicitors must first disclose their name, home address, their employer's name and address, and a description of their planned activities. Once this information is collected, a permit is issued. Solicitors are instructed that they must produce the permit and identify themselves if so requested by any resident or police officer.
To officials in Stratton and their supporters, the permit is well-balanced tool that allows solicitation but discourages criminals from circulating in the village and protects residents' privacy.
To the Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters, the permit amounts to an outright ban of anonymous door-to-door solicitation and pamphleteering - including political advocacy.
"The free one-on-one exchange of ideas is a pillar of our democracy," says Paul Polidoro, a lawyer for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in his brief to the court. "Stratton has devalued both the constitutional right of speakers to express information and the constitutional right of residents to receive it if they so choose."
Abraham Cantor, a Concord, Ohio, lawyer representing Stratton, says the solicitation ordinance is different from others that have been struck down on free-speech grounds by the Supreme Court.
"The Stratton ordinance does not require a disseminator of ideas, whether religious or political, to place his name on the literature, wear a badge, or outwardly proclaim his identity in any manner," Cantor says.
The ordinance was upheld by the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The appeals court brushed aside concerns about restricting anonymous speech, despite a 1995 US Supreme Court decision that established by a 7-2 vote a constitutional right to distribute political fliers anonymously.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in the 1995 anonymous pamphlet case. It says in part: "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
It remains unclear how the seven justices who supported anonymous pamphleteering will view a case involving anonymous soliciting.
Cantor, Stratton's lawyer, says door-to-door solicitors do not enjoy a constitutional right to remain anonymous when they are on private property.
"The Supreme Court has historically indicated that the home is a sanctuary," he says. "It is the right of the homeowner to maintain and retain his privacy."
Polidoro counters that there are easier and more effective ways to protect privacy. Residents could post "No Trespassing," and "No Soliciting," signs outside their homes and then prosecute anyone who ignores them, he says.
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
(c) Copyright 2002. The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3363923&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=21849&rfi=6
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020110_hudson.html
now there are two things are find interesting here. one is the problems JWs have with bans that are less than total. One senses that they prefer to be locked up or tarred and feathered and run out of town rather than being told to apply for a free permit before they preach, as in this case, or to be told to restrict their activities to certain days and times, as in quebec. after all, they are still free to fulfill their commission, arent they? what if door-to-door callers were required to explain who they are and why theyre calling and to ask the householder for permission to proceed before they can say anything else? this is similar to the restrictions on phone salesman in several states. would this be considered to 'amount to an outright ban' on JWs do you think?
the other thing that interests me that i want to throw out is the question of free speech. i expect that most here consider themselves strong free speech advocates. i certainly do. at they same time, im guessing that some of these same people would like restrict the JWs preaching activity. would you consider this stance hypocritical? if not, why not?
thoughts?
mox