|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/09/2002 5:46:51 PM PDT by LakerCJL
LDS Church can't restrict speech on plaza, appeals court rules
Associated Press
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot restrict free speech on the sidewalks that run through its plaza on the city's Main Street, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Wednesday.
The court held that the sidewalks are a traditional public forum and restrictions on free speech on those sidewalks are unconstitutional. The sidewalks that used to line the former block of Main Street currently are open to pedestrians but not open to free speech.
"The city cannot create a 'First Amendment-free zone.' Their attempt to do so must fail," the court ruled.
The dispute arose after the LDS Church imposed rules restricting protests, demonstrations and other activities on the one-block stretch of Main Street in Salt Lake City it bought from the city.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued, arguing that the restrictions were unconstitutional because the city retains an easement across the block to ensure pedestrian access.
An easement allows a person to make limited use of another's property.
The ACLU's lawsuit was earlier dismissed in U.S. District Court in Utah.
U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart dismissed the ACLU's claim, prompting the appeal.
Stewart ruled the collection of fountains, reflecting pools, plants and statues in downtown Salt Lake City had turned a public sidewalk into a private religious garden, exempt from First Amendment protection.
In a 42-page ruling released in May 2001, Stewart wrote: "Although the property remains part of the pedestrian transportation grid via the easement, the undisputed facts show the property's physical character and principal uses have been altered to such an extent that it is clearly a walkway through an enclave area and not part of the city's public sidewalks. It is no longer a public forum."
The list of rules was written by city and church attorneys and approved by the City Council in April 1999. It outlawed smoking, sunbathing, bicycling and "engaging in any illegal, offensive, indecent, obscene, vulgar, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct."
The city argued that it had cleared itself of any obligation because the restrictions were set out when it got the easement.
The church had no immediate comment on the ruling, and its lawyers were reading through the decision Wednesday afternoon, spokesman Dale Bills said.
The city sold the block of Main Street to the church for $8.1 million, and the church promised to turn the asphalt and concrete between North Temple and South Temple into a pedestrian plaza. City leaders also granted the church exclusive rights to distribute literature and broadcast speeches and music on the block.
The church said it could act as it wished on the land because its rights as the property owner trumped the obligations of the easement.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Actually, I would have to agree with the court on this one. If it is open to the public, then the public is allowed free speech at that location.
But that's Hate Speach, not Free Speech. Free Speech is a bunch of left wing unwashed types cursing and performing lewd acts on private property, or burning flags that don't belong to them. Or so the courts seem to have ruled, if you combine a few cases.
IANAL, but I think that the reasoning went like this: Take "Temple Square" next to the sidewalk, which is technically "open to the public," but at the same time clearly a walled-off section of the LDS church. It's also a plaza, but more of a public place in the way that a mall is a "public place." On the other hand, the sidewalk that the court case refers to is a public walkway. I believe that the terms of the easement were such that the LDS church gave up all rights to control access to the sidewalk. The court seems to be saying that the legal right (or lack of legal right) to control access to the property trumps the church in favor of the public. Since the public retains their right of access to the property, they retain all rights they would have in all other public places.
Remember, we're not only talking about what rights the LDS church has but also what rights the public retains regarding their own persons on the sidewalk. It sounds like the easement said, "the public retains its rights on the walkway."
Anyone else willing to give their armchair lawyer interpretation? :)
But as a Freeper, my first priority is to Constitutional Law and situations like this are always interesting.
Now if the LDS church wanted to ban protests from Temple Square, then I would have to side with the LDS church.
There are limits!
It's a shame that these nasty non-special-underwear-wearing heathens are allowed to speak their minds...what is our Country coming to??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.