Story on JWs at the Supreme Court
by ChuckD 4 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ashitaka
Hey chuck,
I read the link, but the lady writes more like a high school kid than an objective journalist.
Even though on CNN.COM it was reported very heavily that the Court was in favor of the Witties, this last mentioned in one sentence near the end.
A little more objectivity would get her a better response, methinks.
ashi
-
messenger
Sounds like to me the Stratton Lawyers got their collective butts kicked by WT.
____________Court Considers Solicitation Permits
The Associated Press, Tue 26 Feb 2002WASHINGTON (AP) — A skeptical Supreme Court questioned Tuesday whether the government may require a permit before anyone from a vacuum salesman to a Halloween trick-or-treater can ring a doorbell unannounced.
The tiny village of Stratton, Ohio, requires permits for any door-to-door activity. The town calls it protection for elderly residents who do not want to be bothered, but the Jehovah's Witnesses call it an unconstitutional limit on free speech.
``You think it's a beautiful idea that I have to ask the government for permission before I can go down the street ... and say, 'I want to talk to you about the situation with garbage pickup?''' an incredulous Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked the town's lawyer. ``That's astounding.''
Justice Antonin Scalia mockingly read a portion of the town ordinance that refers to the ``privilege'' of door-to-door solicitation.
``Privilege?'' he exclaimed by way of implying that speaking one's mind is a protected right, not a privilege that the government can grant or deny.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor drew laughter by asking about a trick-or-treater, or a Christmas caroler.
``The purpose is to prevent annoyance of the property owner,'' town lawyer Abraham Cantor said.
Lawyers for the church contend that Jehovah's Witnesses need no one's permission to pursue what the church views as its mission to take religion to others' doorsteps.
Mormons, Independent Baptist Churches of America, Gun Owners of America and the American Civil Liberties Union are among more than a dozen organizations that signed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the church.
The National League of Cities and other municipal representatives back Stratton.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by July on the church's appeal of a federal court ruling that upheld the permit rules as evenhanded.
The court already has held that the Constitution gives people the right to distribute anonymous campaign literature, and a ruling for the church in this case would extend that right to anonymous door-to-door soliciting for any cause.
Stratton's ordinance requires that permits be obtained in advance before anyone can solicit at a private home. It applies to commercial salesmen, school groups selling candy bars or political candidates eager to shake hands. The solicitor must carry the permit for display to any resident who asks.
Attorneys for the Jehovah's Witnesses said the town of roughly 300 people passed the ordinance in 1998 to keep away members of the faith from a church in a neighboring town. Stratton's mayor then told a group of Jehovah's Witnesses they were not permitted in the town, and people had moved to Stratton to get away from them, the lawyers said.
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.
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.
The case is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al., 00-1737.
-
-
obiefernandez
Check out my post in "the fray" Slate's bulletin board, regarding child molestation.
http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=3936&m=3002363
The JW replies shows how braindead the average dub can be. Actually, the whole discussion thread for that article is full of dumb comments.