Interesting article, but apparently the author either failed to read the Court's opinion or intentionally misrepresented it when he implied that the Jehovah's Witnesses were the "crackpots" referred to in the concurrence written by Scalia and Thomas: "If our free-speech jurisprudence is to be determined by the predicted behavior of such crackpots, we are in a sorry state indeed."
The "crackpots" referred to in the concurring opinion of Scalia and Thomas are those the majority of the Court referred to in its opinion as "patriotic citizens who have such firm convictions about their constitutional right to engage in uninhibited debate in the context of door-to-door advocacy, that they would prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official." Clearly, this cannot describe Jehovah's Witnesses. "Patriotic" is an adjective that has no applicability whatsoever to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is unlikely the upholding of the Stratton ordinance would silence the affected Jehovah's Witnesses.
The author made an excellent point when he said, "[t]hat so much First Amendment precedent is put in the service of these pseudotheocratic dictators is unsettling, even if it is necessary." Similar to the author, I find it very ironic that the folks who are arguing in favor of free speech are those who respect it the least as it concerns the "sheep" who are subject to their control. The "respect" shown by the Jehovah's Witness organization to freedom of speech within their organization is similar to the respect freedom of speech was given by the Taliban while they were still in control of Afghanistan.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented against the majority and concurring opinions in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Although I've seldom agreed with any of his opinions in the past, this time Rehnquist was right on in his dissent. As he points out, a major flaw in the Court's reasoning was its failure to make clear the standard of review it was applying to the case. Intermediate scrutiny was appropriate, and Rehnquist provides an excellent analysis of how the Stratton ordinance passes this level of review. The majority opinion deemed it unnecessary to resolve the issue of what standard of review was applicable, but this position is not consistent with its past rulings. It is interesting that Rehnquist referred to the fact that the town of Stratton was an underdog because unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses, they "do not have a team of [12] attorneys at their ready disposal."
Given current headlines, it is also interesting to note that in a portion of his dissent discussing the crime preventative aspects of the Stratton ordinance, Rehnquist referenced a recent incident of "a man going door-to-door purportedly on behalf of a church group who committed multiple sexual assaults." Did he watch Dateline or was this reference purely coincidental? I wonder.
