Lengthy but worth it.
Nic'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Link: http://www.lawpsided.com/lawpsided_012.htm
Jehovah's Witnesses Knocking on the Door of Court Victory
I was awakened early one weekend morning by an urgent knock at my front door. As the knocking grew more incessant, I became nervous that something was terribly wrong.
I quickly bounded down the stairs and threw open the front door. And from the looks on the faces of the woman and two small children on my doorstep, my suspicions were confirmed.
My mind began to race through the possibilities. Had we been attacked again? Was there some natural disaster requiring evacuation? Had the Backstreet Boys released another album?
However, the looks of shock and horror on the faces of my visitors indicated that the trouble was far more serious. And then it hit me. I do not wear pajamas. As a result, I had subjected a family of Jehovah's Witnesses to the "Full Seany." And take it from my wife, this is not a pretty sight.
As these poor people blindly stumbled away from my doorstep, I began to think that my town should have a law to prevent this type of tragedy. After all, many other cities have passed laws to restrict door-to-door solicitations.
However, as I gave the idea more thought, several questions came to mind. Wouldn't this type of law violate rights to free speech? What would happen if religious groups challenged the law? Which one of my neighbors is going to call the police if I don't close this door, or at least put on a robe?
As I later learned, "no solicitation laws" are frequently challenged in court. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering one such challenge.
In this case, two groups of Jehovah's Witnesses are challenging an ordinance of the Village of Stratton, Ohio. Stratton's ordinance requires solicitors to obtain a permit in order to canvass door-to-door within the village.
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that this law violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on February 26th and a ruling is expected sometime before the next arrival of Haley's Comet.
Under the ordinance, a solicitor may obtain a permit by filing a form with the Office of the Mayor. In this form, the solicitor must provide information about himself, his organization and the length of the proposed campaign.
A permit will be automatically granted upon satisfactory completion of the form. Moreover, the village issues the permit free of charge.
Upon receiving a permit, a solicitor can canvass from door-to-door in the village during daylight hours. However, even with a permit, a solicitor cannot contact homeowners who display "No Solicitation" signs or who have filed "No Solicitation" forms with the Mayor's Office.
Town officials have testified that the law was enacted to protect village residents against fraudulent salesmen and annoying interruptions. However, despite these good intentions, the village was drawn into a legal battle for which it was as ill-prepared as I was for my first four attempts at the state bar exam.
According to a very reliable source - the first site I found on the web - the village has a population of less than 300. It is estimated that there are only 140 families in the entire village. This is in sharp contrast to my hometown of Los Angeles, where there are at least 140 families living in the house next door to mine.
To make matters worse, Stratton is taking on an opponent that is extremely comfortable in front of the Supreme Court. Over the last 70 years, the Jehovah's Witnesses have won a number of landmark cases in this area.
And as an experienced combatant in this realm, they have implored the textbook strategy for this type of case. Namely, they have attacked the ordinance from every conceivable angle.
One argument being made is that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court has long held that a law is unconstitutionally vague if it does not afford a "person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." Nevertheless, it has never applied this standard literally.
After all, if you've ever seen an episode of Cops, or been to one of my wife's family reunions, you know that "ordinary intelligence" is a fairly low threshold in modern America. A law capable of being understood by many "ordinary" Americans would probably read like this:
"See John. See John run. No trip John. No punch John. Let John be."
In this case, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the terms "solicitor," "canvasser" and "cause" are vague and confusing. In my view, this is weakest argument since the "it all depends what the meaning of is 'is'" argument used by Clinton during Zippergate.
Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that they should be exempt from this law because it violates the free exercise of their religion. They claim that their religion requires them to proselytize and this law interferes with that religious practice.
NOTE: For those of you educated in the public schools, "proselytizing" does not involve scantily clad women making indecent proposals to sailors and U.S. Congressman.
In the past, the courts have granted exemptions for religious observances. However, in recent years, the courts have been less willing to grant these exemptions.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument being made by the Jehovah's Witnesses is that the Stratton ordinance is unconstitutional because it is overly broad. As a result, the law does more than simply prevent fraud and annoyance but also, restricts constitutionally permitted speech.
It appears that several of the justices on the high court agree on this point. In oral arguments, Justice O'Connor pointed out that this law would cover trick-or-treaters and neighbors asking to borrow a cup of sugar. Justices Kennedy and Souter pondered whether this law would prevent neighbors from approaching one another to discuss local issues.
Justice Scalia went so far as to comment that the Stratton ordinance was the broadest anti-speech ordinance to come before the Court in his two centuries on the bench. Justice Clarence Thomas chimed in that "this ordinance is a 'high-tech' lynching" before being reminded that Anita Hill was not a litigant in this case.
Seriously, the Stratton ordinance is overly broad and should be struck down on that basis. Besides, in my view, the Jehovah's Witnesses should be free to spread their gospel door-to-door. Of course, this is easy for me to say because after our last encounter, there isn't much of a chance that I'll be receiving a visit anytime soon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------