Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peregrine · 02-27-2002, 12:00 PM

What you have is:

Smith doctrine: A content neutral law with secular intent which inadvertantly hinders religious expression is still constitutional.

Equal Access doctrine: Forums must be open to all regardless of content.

Does this law meet Smith -- I'd say yes.
Does this law meet equal access -- I'm not quite sure. If a law exists to issue permits, the fact that none have been denied is irrelevent if the government has the authority to deny a permit, then the law does not meet equal access.

Add to this the requirement that you must identify yourself, then the law is going to have a rocky time of surviving.

Toto · 02-27-2002, 12:47 PM

Except that the Supremes did not take this on as a religious case, but as a "freedom for anonymous speakers" case, according to the Slate article above. So I don't think that Smith is decisive - Smith involved the use of Peyote, which is not protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

RufusAtticus · 02-27-2002, 04:15 PM

If I remember correctly, residents could fill out a card saying they didn't want to be visited by solictators. On the card there was a places for the JWs. No other faith-based group was represented, IIRC. Not to mention the statements by the mayor to the effect of, "most of the people moved here to get away from JWs."

We might not like JWs or their behaviors, but it is not the secular government's place to decide who can and who can't prothelyse.

-RvFvS

trebor · 02-27-2002, 07:03 PM

The only part of the ordinance for which I find much sympathy is the supposed desire to protect the citizens of Stratton. But it looks suspiciously like the real intent is to keep away the Jehovah's Witnesses. It appears to be broad-based and applicable to all (if it stands, it should be the same for all). But the fact that one must get a permit (and therefore the permit theoretically could be denied) makes me wonder that once everyone is no longer looking, the city might abuse the granting of permits, picking and choosing who may and may not have them. I am also somewhat concerned about a government entity deciding who may and may not go onto someone's private property.

brighid · 02-28-2002, 04:47 AM

The only entity that should be able to decide who can and cannot come onto anothers private property is the private property owner!

I don't want JW's, Catholics, Atheists, Agnostics, KKK's, Girl Scouts or anyone else knocking on my door wanting to talk to me. Although having been a girl scout having the lovely task of going door to door to sell cookies - I might have more sympathy.

I am really not sure why this is an issue. I would have a problem if they were disallowed a permit for public displays, or setting up shop at some local and public event based upon their religion. I completely support the right to free speech and even allowing Neo-Nazi and other disgusting groups permits for parades, etc. BUT private land owners should have the ability to petition their local government to set guidelines to establish who and what can come knocking on their doors. It's PRIVATE property and the same rules do not apply as they do in the public square - or at least they shouldn't. JW's are notorious for their repetitious callings, even when they have been repeatedly told "I'm NOT interested!" The Catholics, Lutherans, UU's and others don't go door to door wanting to talk to you about the GOOD WORD! JW's doctrinally put themselves in a position to be singled out because they are the only idiots that do it.

A local governments policy should be an organization may leave literature in a mail recepticle - but you may not annoy private land owners for any reason.

In my younger days I use to canvas for an environmental group and had the fun job of going door to door talking to people about the political issues relevant to the environment. I look back on that now - as a private land owner - and cringe. It was a worthy cause, but it can be (and was at times) dangerous for the canvasser and the resident(s).

If I want to know more information about an organization I will go and visit them. But in the privacy of my own home - no one should infringe upon that period - good cause or not. It's like having those damned salesman that hit right when you get in the door and follow you around the showroom and pressure you for the sale so they can get their commission - not unlike the JW's getting "commission" for winning your soul for their god - cha ching! $$$

Brighid

Oresta · 03-01-2002, 04:33 AM

A local governments policy should be an organization may leave literature in a mail recepticle - but you may not annoy private land owners for any reason.

It's my understanding that it is illegal to put anything except U.S. Mail in a mail box.
However, I agree that uninvited solicitation of any kind is a pain in the ass, and there should be some regulation. Vending ordinances attempt to find a balance between the right to conduct a legitimate canvassing and residents' protection from scam artists, unlicensed contractors, realtor blockbusters, etc. Time was when there were Fuller Brush men, life insurance agents, Encylopaedia and magazine salepeople all frequently knocking at our doors. No one seemed to mind much, and often they were welcomed into the home by lonely housewives in need of adult conversation or the convenience of home-delivered services and goods. Door-to-door sales is a nearly extinct enterprise, but the intrepid JWs soldier on, in a climate where we covet our privacy more intensely than our grandparents ever did. That change, however, doesn't give any weight to the Stratton Village Ordinance, aimed at protecting residents from a minor annoyance which they should be able to handle themselves.
Edited for typos.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

brighid · 03-01-2002, 04:41 AM

Oresta -

Thanks for the input. I think the general experience with JW's is different from the average solicitor that might canvas a neighborhood. We kept logs of addresses that asked us to not bother knocking on their door - or ones that were just polite and not interested. It was a total waste of time as a canvasser to keep hitting a house that was known for not being receptive or stated - Please leave me alone. Not only that, but it would really hurt the reputation of the organization if we developed a rep in a neighborhood for being pushy, etc.

Some JW's just don't seem to care if you have a no soliciting sign, beware of dog or no trespassing sign posted - OR if you told them the last 5 times to NOT bother you!

So, in the case of the insanely annoying, prosyletizing yahoos - what should a local government of private property owner do?

Maybe we should do like the a farmer in my old neighborhood use to do when he found kids planning around in his corn fields - he would chase you down on his tractor and shoot you in the ass with rock salt!

Brighid

Toto · 06-17-2002, 10:22 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63861-2002Jun17.html" target="_blank">JW's win another one in the Supreme Court</a>

Quote:

. . .

Two of the court's most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, agreed with the outcome of the case but did not sign on to Stevens' reasoning.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented.

Barry Lynn, executive director of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said the court got it right.

"It seems that the court has simply said once again that you shouldn't have to get the government's permission to spread your views," Lynn said.

"People have the right not to listen or to close their doors, but the government is not supposed to be in that door closing business."

. . .
The majority in today's case said the law was too broad. Had it been much more narrowly written to guard against unwanted sales calls, it might have withstood constitutional scrutiny, Stevens wrote.

. . .

Rehnquist's dissent mentioned the killings of two university professors in New Hampshire, allegedly by men who had cased the neighborhood by going door to door.

Stratton's law was intended to address such "very grave risks associated with canvassing," and did not unduly limit free speech, Rehnquist wrote.

. . .

The case is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al., 00-1737.

tragic_pizza · 06-17-2002, 10:27 AM

Rememeber that we never have had a constitutional right to not be disturbed or offended.

Toto · 06-17-2002, 10:37 AM

<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1737" target="_blank">The decision</a>

Scalia's take:

Quote:

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment, for many but not all of the reasons set forth in the opinion for the Court. I do not agree, for example, that one of the causes of the invalidity of Strattons ordinance is that some people have a religious objection to applying for a permit, and others (posited by the Court) 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. Ante, at 16.

If a licensing requirement is otherwise lawful, it is in my view not invalidated by the fact that some people will choose, for religious reasons, to forgo speech rather than observe it. That would convert an invalid free-exercise claim, see Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=494&invol=872" target="_blank">494 U.S. 872</a> (1990), into a valid free-speech claim and a more destructive one at that. Whereas the free-exercise claim, if acknowledged, would merely exempt Jehovahs Witnesses from the licensing requirement, the free-speech claim exempts everybody, thanks to Jehovahs Witnesses.

As for the Courts fairy-tale category of patriotic citizens, ante, at 16, who would rather be silenced than licensed in a manner that the Constitution (but for their patriotic objection) would permit: If our free-speech jurisprudence is to be determined by the predicted behavior of such crackpots, we are in a sorry state indeed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2002, 12:00 PM	#11
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	What you have is: Smith doctrine: A content neutral law with secular intent which inadvertantly hinders religious expression is still constitutional. Equal Access doctrine: Forums must be open to all regardless of content. Does this law meet Smith -- I'd say yes. Does this law meet equal access -- I'm not quite sure. If a law exists to issue permits, the fact that none have been denied is irrelevent if the government has the authority to deny a permit, then the law does not meet equal access. Add to this the requirement that you must identify yourself, then the law is going to have a rocky time of surviving.

02-27-2002, 12:47 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Except that the Supremes did not take this on as a religious case, but as a "freedom for anonymous speakers" case, according to the Slate article above. So I don't think that Smith is decisive - Smith involved the use of Peyote, which is not protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

02-27-2002, 04:15 PM	#13
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	If I remember correctly, residents could fill out a card saying they didn't want to be visited by solictators. On the card there was a places for the JWs. No other faith-based group was represented, IIRC. Not to mention the statements by the mayor to the effect of, "most of the people moved here to get away from JWs." We might not like JWs or their behaviors, but it is not the secular government's place to decide who can and who can't prothelyse. -RvFvS

02-27-2002, 07:03 PM	#14
trebor Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: USA Posts: 12	The only part of the ordinance for which I find much sympathy is the supposed desire to protect the citizens of Stratton. But it looks suspiciously like the real intent is to keep away the Jehovah's Witnesses. It appears to be broad-based and applicable to all (if it stands, it should be the same for all). But the fact that one must get a permit (and therefore the permit theoretically could be denied) makes me wonder that once everyone is no longer looking, the city might abuse the granting of permits, picking and choosing who may and may not have them. I am also somewhat concerned about a government entity deciding who may and may not go onto someone's private property.

02-28-2002, 04:47 AM	#15
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	The only entity that should be able to decide who can and cannot come onto anothers private property is the private property owner! I don't want JW's, Catholics, Atheists, Agnostics, KKK's, Girl Scouts or anyone else knocking on my door wanting to talk to me. Although having been a girl scout having the lovely task of going door to door to sell cookies - I might have more sympathy. I am really not sure why this is an issue. I would have a problem if they were disallowed a permit for public displays, or setting up shop at some local and public event based upon their religion. I completely support the right to free speech and even allowing Neo-Nazi and other disgusting groups permits for parades, etc. BUT private land owners should have the ability to petition their local government to set guidelines to establish who and what can come knocking on their doors. It's PRIVATE property and the same rules do not apply as they do in the public square - or at least they shouldn't. JW's are notorious for their repetitious callings, even when they have been repeatedly told "I'm NOT interested!" The Catholics, Lutherans, UU's and others don't go door to door wanting to talk to you about the GOOD WORD! JW's doctrinally put themselves in a position to be singled out because they are the only idiots that do it. A local governments policy should be an organization may leave literature in a mail recepticle - but you may not annoy private land owners for any reason. In my younger days I use to canvas for an environmental group and had the fun job of going door to door talking to people about the political issues relevant to the environment. I look back on that now - as a private land owner - and cringe. It was a worthy cause, but it can be (and was at times) dangerous for the canvasser and the resident(s). If I want to know more information about an organization I will go and visit them. But in the privacy of my own home - no one should infringe upon that period - good cause or not. It's like having those damned salesman that hit right when you get in the door and follow you around the showroom and pressure you for the sale so they can get their commission - not unlike the JW's getting "commission" for winning your soul for their god - cha ching! $$$ Brighid

03-01-2002, 04:33 AM	#16
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	A local governments policy should be an organization may leave literature in a mail recepticle - but you may not annoy private land owners for any reason. It's my understanding that it is illegal to put anything except U.S. Mail in a mail box. However, I agree that uninvited solicitation of any kind is a pain in the ass, and there should be some regulation. Vending ordinances attempt to find a balance between the right to conduct a legitimate canvassing and residents' protection from scam artists, unlicensed contractors, realtor blockbusters, etc. Time was when there were Fuller Brush men, life insurance agents, Encylopaedia and magazine salepeople all frequently knocking at our doors. No one seemed to mind much, and often they were welcomed into the home by lonely housewives in need of adult conversation or the convenience of home-delivered services and goods. Door-to-door sales is a nearly extinct enterprise, but the intrepid JWs soldier on, in a climate where we covet our privacy more intensely than our grandparents ever did. That change, however, doesn't give any weight to the Stratton Village Ordinance, aimed at protecting residents from a minor annoyance which they should be able to handle themselves. Edited for typos. [ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

03-01-2002, 04:41 AM	#17
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Oresta - Thanks for the input. I think the general experience with JW's is different from the average solicitor that might canvas a neighborhood. We kept logs of addresses that asked us to not bother knocking on their door - or ones that were just polite and not interested. It was a total waste of time as a canvasser to keep hitting a house that was known for not being receptive or stated - Please leave me alone. Not only that, but it would really hurt the reputation of the organization if we developed a rep in a neighborhood for being pushy, etc. Some JW's just don't seem to care if you have a no soliciting sign, beware of dog or no trespassing sign posted - OR if you told them the last 5 times to NOT bother you! So, in the case of the insanely annoying, prosyletizing yahoos - what should a local government of private property owner do? Maybe we should do like the a farmer in my old neighborhood use to do when he found kids planning around in his corn fields - he would chase you down on his tractor and shoot you in the ass with rock salt! Brighid

06-17-2002, 10:27 AM	#19
tragic_pizza Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 108	Rememeber that we never have had a constitutional right to not be disturbed or offended.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.