Jehovah's Witnesses win partial victory over gated communities. Too little too late?

by Balaamsass2 7 Replies latest social current

• 

  Balaamsass2

  

  Monday, November 24, 201Last Update: 1:00 PM PT

  Jehovah's Witnesses Win Community Access Case By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN ShareThis (CN) - Gated communities in Puerto Rico that include public roads must hand over their keys and access codes to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the 1st Circuit ruled. "Unlike other jurisdictions, Puerto Rico allows private citizens to maintain gated residential communities that incorporate public streets," U.S. Circuit Judge Bruce Selya said, writing for the three-judge panel. "This unorthodox configuration produces an awkward amalgam of the public and private sectors, which makes the task of applying traditional First Amendment jurisprudence something of an adventure," Selya said. Puerto Rico's Controlled Access Law permitting these gated communities, called "urbanizations," was passed in response to rising drug violence, and an unusually high homicide rate. The Jehovah's Witnesses challenged the law 10 years ago, arguing that it interfered with their First Amendment right to conduct missionary activities along public rights of way. On a prior appeal, the 1st Circuit found that "a regime of locked, unmanned gates completely barring access to public streets will preclude all direct communicative activity by nonresidents in traditional public forums, and, absent a more specific showing, cannot be deemed 'narrowly tailored.'" On remand, the district court ordered each municipal defendant to provide the Jehovah's Witnesses with "unfettered" access to every unmanned gated community in its borders by turning over keys, buzzers or access codes identical to those which would be given to a resident. Manned gated communities were ordered to instruct their security guards to provide immediate access to Jehovah's Witnesses who identify themselves. The judge also authorized the municipalities to impose sanctions on urbanizations that did not comply with the order. The 1st Circuit upheld the decision last week over both parties' objections. "Each municipality has an ongoing duty to ensure that the First Amendment is respected in the urbanizations founded under its auspices," Judge Selya said. "Here, the record amply demonstrates that the municipal defendants have had a policy and custom of issuing permits to urbanizations without attaching conditions sufficient to ensure public access. This policy and custom led directly to the infringement of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights." While security concerns "weigh heavily" against First Amendment considerations, there is no doubt that the Constitution protects access to public forums for door-to-door ministry, the panel said. But the court also dismissed the Jehovah's Witnesses objections to the solution. "We reject the plaintiffs' argument that the burden of sharing keys constitutes a prior restraint. Sharing keys is a reasonable restriction on the manner of affording access to public streets within the urbanizations," Selya said. The Jehovah's Witnesses also asserted that the remedy is limited to the representative communities which they named as defendants to the complaint - not to all urbanizations on the island. "This shortfall, however, is of the plaintiffs' own contrivance: it was their decision to sue only a representative sampling of municipalities that authorized unmanned urbanizations. Had they accepted the district court's invitation and sued all of the affected municipalities, the geographic breadth of the remedy would not be an issue," the court found.
• 

  Balaamsass2

  Ten years and how many dollars later? Result....? :

  A hodgepodge of keys from a scattering of communities on an Island. While most JWs prefer online and coffee shop preaching, a number of JW pedophiles will be quite pleased to have a pocket full of community keys.
• 

  Divergent

  LOL @ the last few paragraphs!
• 

  Zoos

  Sorry, but I have a problem with tax-payer funded public streets being gated. If you want a gate on your community, PAY FOR THE ROADS YOURSELF.

  The WATCHTOWER lawsuit makes a valid point.
• 

  sowhatnow

  but are they doing MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES??? I hightly doubt it. That should challenged

  I thought a gated commumity had the right to vote on whom they wish to enter it?

  so now are these people allowed to post no soliciting or religious persons on said property?

  hows that gonna look, all the way down the street, little white signs saying no preaching or misionarries?

  what the heck, here they will send out mail or call to get to these people in security buildings and the like.

  yea, ten years still beating a dead horse
• 

  menrov

  Zoos, I understand your point. But at the same time, the Watchtower does not pay any taxes and still make use of legal system (judges) which are paid for by the tax payer. It could be seen as a valid point if the access was needed to support the community. But this access request is only in their own benefit.
• 

  Chaserious

  The decision from this week was not actually that they could have access to the gated communities - that was decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals years ago. This was another appeal over how to implement the process of allowing access and how widely it should be applied.

  Either way, allowing them access is easily the right decision. The municipal governments are involved in setting up the gated areas. Private persons on private property should be able to keep out whoever they want, but the government should never be allowed to pick and choose who can speak publicly in public places.

  As for paying taxes, that never has been and should not be a prerequisite for access to the courts and protection of constitutional rights.
• 

  berrygerry

  Sorry, when was this decision made?