|
LEGALITIES
AMPLIFICATION
We have encountered numerous situations where we have been
"officially" stopped from Open Air Preaching with our
public amplification device by Louisville police. In addition, there
have been many attempts at "unofficially" stopping us
by some business owners and "hecklers" alike. We were also stopped
(after successfully preaching the Gospel once!) by the 4th Street
LIVE! security team. Please understand that we do not intend to go out in
the community and cause a "stir". As a matter of fact, each time (except
for once!) we were on public property and were simply exercising our First
Amendment right of Freedom Speech. Each time the police have stopped us it
was
because we had the amplification device, but we didn't have a permit.
However, they
told us that we could continue without it. Of course, we continued
preaching the Gospel. This page is designed to "clear the air" on the
important legal issues and matters.
I called the Louisville Government offices to find out what
was necessary to acquire the elusive public amplification permit that the police
had spoken of on the occasions they shut us down. To my surprise, I was
informed that there was no such permit! The employee informed me that
there used to be a permit, but a new ordinance got rid of
the permit. She told me outright that we could not use an amplification
device. I asked if we could get a permit to cordon off an area and use an
amplification device. She informed me that you cannot get a permit to cordon off an
area and that everyone must abide by the
Noise Ordinance, which only allows..."Any manufactured noise plainly
audible at a distance of 50 feet from its point of origination or emanation."
Bummer!!!
4th STREET LIVE!
Well, for us, it's more like "4th Street Dead!" On
August 4, 2006 we headed down to 4th Street Live! to do some Open Air preaching and were asked to leave by 4th
Street Live! security after preaching, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK!
While I was on the phone asking about an amplification permit (see above), I also inquired
about the 4th Street Live! incident. The employee informed me that the
city and 4th Street Live! have an agreement and that 4th Street Live! pretty much
"owned" the whole block. She said that she didn't agree with the
policy either, but that's how it was. It just doesn't seem right considering it's public
property! That's all I know for now.
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
We decided to begin witnessing to the University of Louisville student
population in the Fall of 2006. September 8, 2006 was our first visit to
the campus. The process and paperwork to speak on campus was somewhat
tedious and confusing. We ran into a snag during the process to get
approved to come on campus. The form that we had to fill out stated that
we could either speak (Open Air) or hand out literature, but not both.
We couldn't quite understand why we couldn't hand out literature to the people
standing in the immediate Free Speech area. After conversing back and
forth via EMail with the "powers that be" at U of L and making no progress, I
called the American Center for Law and Justice
(ACLJ - kind of like the Christian version of the ACLU) and left a message
explaining the situation. I was called back the next day by a concerned
David Brown of the ACLJ. He asked me to send him the documents and any
EMails that had transpired between The Jude 23 Network and U of L. I sent
the requested documents and was then contacted later that day by Geoffrey
Surtees, a local representative of the ACLJ. He then drafted a letter and
sent it to U of L on behalf of The Jude 23 Network on August 31, 2006. The
following day, Mr. Surtees called me and told me that we were cleared to hand
out literature in the Free Speech area and that U of L was taking a closer look
at their forms to approve who can come on campus. Thanks again ACLJ, Mr.
Brown and Mr. Surtees for all of your help in this matter!!!
Here is the letter
he sent on our behalf.
EAR X-TACY - THE HIGHLANDS (BARDSTOWN RD)
On June 22, 2007 we were approached by four police
officers while street witnessing...
Each Friday evening our team goes to the “heart” of
Louisville on Bardstown Road to street witness. In this location there are many
people walking up and down the sidewalk. It just so happens that this
location is near a record store called Ear X-Tacy. Over the course of the
past two months we have been asked by the employees of the “Ear X-Tacy”
establishment to go “somewhere else”. On the initial occasion of their
asking, we did move down the sidewalk approximately twenty feet to simply be
nice. However, on this occasion the police were called and four (yes four)
officers showed up to tell us that “Ear X-Tacy could file a civil suit
against us if we didn’t move…” They said that their customers were
making complaints against us. They couldn’t provide us with specifics
about the alleged harassment nor could they produce anyone who was being
“harassed” when we asked them about it.
We proceeded to explain what we figured the police
officers already knew… that we were simply exercising our First Amendment rights
by handing out tracts and attempting to speak with passersby. As people
pass by we hold out a “Million Dollar Bill” and ask them, “Hello, did you get
one of these? It has the Million Dollar question on the back...Will you go to
Heaven? What do you think?” Most people take the tracts and continue on
their way, but many stop and we take the opportunity to engage them in
conversation. We do not block the sidewalk, impede the flow of pedestrian
traffic, have amplification, etc.
We became concerned when the officer made the idle threat that Ear X-Tacy could
file a civil law suit against us and “drag us into court”. As we
spoke with the officers they all acknowledged that we had the right to do what
we were doing and they couldn’t stop us, but recommended that we leave the area.
We decided not to take their advice and leave the area, but instead stayed
without any further incident. Pure speculation here, but we believe that
there are more than likely no legitimate customers complaining about so-called
harassment, but Ear X-Tacy is using this as a tactic to remove us from the area
because they disagree with the message.
In order to be proactive in this situation, we asked Geoffrery Surtees with the American Center for Law and Justice
(ACLJ - kind of like the Christian version of the ACLU) if he would mind sending
a letter to Ear X-Tacy and possibly copying the letter to the appropriate
persons at the police department reminding them of our rights.
Here is the letter
he sent on our behalf. We have had no further incidents with Ear X-Tacy.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH (Source: School
of Biblical Evangelism
www.BiblicalEvangelism.com)
Public streets and parks are considered to be "traditional
public forums." This is the classic place where citizens have always been
permitted to share their beliefs and ideas with one another either verbally or
through the distribution of literature. In the case of Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S.
496 (1939), the United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a
"guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The
privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be
regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of
regulation, be abridged or denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not
outweigh free speech interests.
The "traditional public forum" is the most protected place for Christian
witnessing, "street preaching," and tract distribution. All citizens have an
absolute right to share their faith in the "traditional public forum" of streets
and parks. This absolute right is subject only to limited controls in the
interest of public safety and order--i.e. Two parades cannot march down the same
street at the same time so parade permits, if constitutionally granted, are
permissible.
It is important to note that controls for public safety and order may not be
imposed for reasons such as potential littering, potential offense to other
citizens, or attempts to silence some citizens while continuing to permit others
to speak in the forum. Amplification may be regulated by ordinances setting
noise decibel levels under Kovacs v. Cooper, 335 U.S. 77 (1949), In the case of
Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), the United States Supreme Court did not
permit cities to forbid leaflet distribution in order to prevent littering. The
objective of keeping the streets clean does not outweigh the right to distribute
literature in public.
Christians are free to witness and distribute Gospel tracts in public streets
and parks. Christians are also free to preach, sing, or present dramatizations,
which might collect a crowd as long as that crowd will not block pedestrian or
vehicular traffic. Permits may sometimes be required for formal crowd generating
activities but they must be available on a neutral basis to all who request them
and must allow real communication to take place. In the case of Freedman v.
Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), the United States Supreme Court held that public
officials may not be given overly broad discretion to grant or deny permits or
licenses.
First Amendment law also does not allow city police or officials to interfere
with a citizen's right of freedom of speech simply because that speech might
offend a listener. These cases are particularly important to your situation. In
the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the United States
Supreme Court held that speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends
some listeners.
Several other Supreme Court cases have also dealt with this issue of giving
offense to other citizens, which is sometimes called the "Heckler's Veto" and is
not permitted. In the case of Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), the United
States Supreme Court held that hecklers may not be allowed to veto a speaker's
right of free speech. Police must control a crowd rather than arrest the speaker
in order to maintain order. A similar ruling that offensiveness is not a reason
to limit free speech rights was made by the Supreme Court in the case of Cohen
v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
In America, citizens, police and city officials are still held to the legal
standard that can be restated in the folk maxim: I may not agree with what you
say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That is still the law
in these United States. (See "Key Legal Cases" at the bottom of this page.) It
is also true that I may be offended by what you say but I must protect your
constitutional right to say it. Witnessing, "street preaching," and distribution
of free literature are constitutionally protected activities because they are
ways citizens have always exercised their rights of free speech.
Practical Guidelines for Street Preachers:
- Do not disrupt the pedestrian traffic flow.
- Do not speak within earshot of store entrances.
- Maintain a reasonable noise level for the situation.
- If hassled by police or other citizens, be polite and
explain your rights calmly.
- Consider picking up any tracts passersby may drop near
you in the street.
- Don't force people to take literature if they
obviously do not want it.
- Work in teams as much as possible to ensure safety and
to vouch for each other if confronted by police. This is particularly
important in "bad" parts of town.
- You could carry a letter from a pastor or evangelist
vouching for your legitimate activities.
- You might also carry along a list of names of court
cases that give you the right to do what you are doing.
- If you see a companion being arrested, do not
interfere with the arrest. Observe from the sidelines and then call a local
attorney or pastor for help.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not intended to be, and does not
constitute, the giving of legal advice. In this short paper we can only
summarize the rights of Christian's in public places. It's important that one
understand exactly how things can be effectively accomplished under the law and
by understanding decisions by the U. S. Supreme Court. It is important to
remember that this area of the law is constantly changing. For this reason we
urge readers that before implementing anything mentioned in this paper that you
obtain more information available from the
Christian Law Association (CLA), and that you contact competent legal
counsel for advice. The CLA has booklets written by Christian lawyers who have
carefully studied the U. S. Supreme Court (and other court) decisions. If you
follow their guidelines, you will be amazed at how much freedom there is to
present the Christian message.
KEY LEGAL CASES
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to
streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the
streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best
interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or
denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech
interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving
legitimate, content neutral objectives.
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).
Time, place and manner regulations must be narrowly tailored and must not be
substantially broader than necessary to achieve a significant government
interest.
Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939). The United States Supreme Court did not
allow cities to completely forbid leaflet distribution in order to prevent
littering. The objective of keeping the streets clean does not outweigh the
right to distribute literature in public.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). The United States Supreme Court
permitted a city to require a permit for parades as a reasonable means of
maintaining public order.
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965). Public officials may not be given
overly broad discretion to grant or deny permits or licenses for free speech.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Speech may not be prohibited
merely because it offends some listeners.
Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). The United States Supreme Court did not
allow a permit to include any restrictions on a speaker's right of free
expression. Permits may not be used as a prior restraint on free speech
activities. Inappropriate or illegal activities may only be punished after they
have occurred.
Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992).
A city may
not consider the listeners' reaction to a speaker when permitting free speech
activities.
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). Hecklers may not be allowed to veto a
speaker's right of free speech. Police must control a crowd rather than arrest
the speaker in order to maintain order. Regulations may be imposed on free
speech to control traffic flow.
Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969). Peaceful marching, chanting,
and singing is protected by the First Amendment.
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Free speech expression may be
regulated for noise content in appropriate places such as hospitals or schools
while classes are in session. The general test is to ask whether the expressive
activity is basically incompatible with the normal activities of a particular
place at a particular time. Unamplified speech is permissible for "street
preachers" on public streets.
|
