The Loon and the Law

[SezMe]

Today I was walking my dog in the park when, up ahead, I noticed a small wooden table with nobody standing near it and with various pieces of literature on it. Curiosity got the better of me and so I went over to check it out.

AAAACK! Chick tracts. AAACK! Plus a lot of other Christian literature as well.

I went home (only a couple of blocks away) called the Parks Department and asked them to send someone over to haul the stuff away. Then I went back and waited to make sure it was taken care of.

A bit later, an elderly gentleman came up and began to straighten out the materials. I approached him and asked if it was his material. He confirmed it was and the conversation was off the to races. At first, it became a bit heated when I told him I didn't think it was legal for him to engage in this practice and he responded first that he didn't need a permit but later said he had a permit from the police. But he refused to give me his name or show me his permit, thus making it very hard to confirm his story.

I decided to back off and discuss his material (partly to hold him there) until the Park Ranger showed up. He was your basic loon. God loves me, evolution is wrong, Jesus is the only way to salvation, etc., etc., etc. Logic was simply not a part of his thought processes.

He had a bit of an accent and, when asked about it, said his father was from Germany and had been "saved" which was the start of his own salvation. I told him my grandfather was from Germany, he clapped me on the shoulder like a long lost cousin, and soon we were best of buddies. I have to admit I kinda liked him. Sure, he was as loony as can be, but he was loony in a nice kind of way. Ya know what I mean? No fire and brimstone (although he did confirm I was on a one-way road hellfire). Just a sincere disciple of the One True Way.

Finally (~1.5 hours; I was getting really bored with my new found friend, Paul), the Parks guy shows up. He says that what Paul is doing is not illegal (which means he lied when he said he had a permit since he did not even need one). He could set up his little stand as long as he lingered nearby (which was the case, I just didn't notice him at first). If he set it up and left, the Park people could confiscate it as abandoned property. If he tried to sell anything, he would be afoul of the law. But as long as he gave his material away and remained in reasonably close proximity, he was within the bounds of existing city ordinances.

I don't like it. So here are my questions and the reason for this thread. Does your municipality allow this type of practice? If not, what is the wording of the ordinance that prohibits it yet does not violate our free speech rights? Is there a place where I can go to get model ordinances that could serve as an example that I could try to get enacted? Or is this type of practice just something we have to put up with in order to preserve free speech?

Thanks.

 

[Zep]

Next time, help the guy out. Offer to take all his material that he can give you, so he has a successful day "converting" you. Then, on the way home, "convert" the stuff again, into trash.

 

[Beady]

So here are my questions and the reason for this thread. Does your municipality allow this type of practice?

What? Freedom of speech? Uh, yeah. Usually. Matter of fact, they have a bloody hard time restricting it.

You specify that it was "Chick" and Christian literature. You are also quite explicit that he did not approach you or try an unwelcome prosylytising; you, in fact, approached him and initiated a conversation. It was only as a result of your questioning that you learned his views on "salvation" and such.

Just exactly what is the nature of your objection? That your loon was handing out literature? That he had it on display? That he left it on view while he stepped out for a wee? That he was causing a public disturbance? That you found his material to be personally objectionable? That he answered your questions?

BTW, I'm not sure where you are, but here in the States the question is not whether an action is legal, but whether it is illegal. You should be asking for examples of ordinances that disallow or restrict the distribution of free, legal literature in public places. My bet is that you'll have to go someplace like China to find an example.

Edit: Here's an idea. You ask for examples? Why don't you try writing one, yourself? Right here, right now. Write an ordinance that prohibits your loon from doing what he was doing; the only restriction placed on you is that your final result must be something which you truly believe will stand up in a court of law.

 

[Solitaire]

Re: Re: The Loon and the Law

Originally posted by Beady
BTW, I'm not sure where you are, but here in the States the question is not whether an action is legal, but whether it is illegal. You should be asking for examples of ordinances that disallow or restrict the distribution of free, legal literature in public places. My bet is that you'll have to go someplace like China to find an example.

Edit: Here's an idea. You ask for examples? Why don't you try writing one, yourself? Right here, right now. Write an ordinance that prohibits your loon from doing what he was doing; the only restriction placed on you is that your final result must be something which you truly believe will stand up in a court of law.

Dear me, a bit of a hissy fit.

I'm sure his objection was based upon seperation of church and state.
At the local Walmart a christain group was putting up chick tracts and
other bits of propaganda behind products that would pop out when an
unsuspecting shopper removed the product. I'm quite certain that the
separation clause came into play and they stopped doing it.

I worry about China though. If chinese business men come to america
and learn that the price of goods is sold for ten times what they sell
them for then Walmart will go out of business and be replaced by Lo
Wangs who will pay their chinese management one thousandth the
price of ameican management.

 

[crimresearch]

What Beady said.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: The Loon and the Law

Dear me, a bit of a hissy fit.

Precisely what makes the quoted material a hissy fit? Is there any bit of it that is untrue? If it's my suggestion that you don't like, why don't you like it? If the OP is looking to ban the activity in question, what's wrong with asking him to craft the ban, himself? Or are you merely making an ad hominem attack?

I'm sure his objection was based upon seperation of church and state.
At the local Walmart...

Refutation by non-sequitur? If you're going to talk about the separation of Church and State, it does not strike me as particularly pertinent to talk about the separation of Church and Walmart.

 

[aerocontrols]

I also concur with Beady.

 

[SezMe]

Having slept on it, I have reconsidered and agree with Beady, but not his snotty tone. It is a free speech issue and he (the loon) should be allowed to do it.

Why don't I write my own ordinance Beady? 'Cause I'm not a lawyer. And because I know there are people a lot smarter than me in every area of human activity. And that these people might have something to say or have done something that I should consider before running off six ways from Sunday. I am not ashamed of asking for advice. Why don't you go off and create your own forum where stupid people like me don't ask stupid questions.

 

[Beady]

Having slept on it, I have reconsidered and agree with Beady, but not his snotty tone.

I do apologize for the tone. It wasn't intended to sound that way. I meant what I said, but I didn't mean for it to sound the way it apparently did. Serious question, and I really want to know the answer: What made it snotty? Answer via PM, if you think it'd be more appropriate.

Why don't I write my own ordinance Beady? 'Cause I'm not a lawyer.

So? I work with the law every day, and it's not the laws, themselves, that are complicated, but rather the attorney's arguments as they try to bend and twist the law to their clients' advantage.

In my job, all I need to approve an application to the government is a rubber stamp; to deny an application, however, I have to write a letter, based entirely on the law, that will stand up in front of a judge. It's not at all unusual for me or my coworkers to talk ourselves out of making a denial by attempting to write the denial letter, only to find out that we simply can't marshall the facts or logic to sustain our initial decision. That was why I suggested you write an ordinance of your own.

 

[Solitaire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Loon and the Law

Originally posted by Beady
Precisely what makes the quoted material a hissy fit? Is there any bit of it that is untrue? If it's my suggestion that you don't like, why don't you like it? If the OP is looking to ban the activity in question, what's wrong with asking him to craft the ban, himself? Or are you merely making an ad hominem attack?

All those question marks makes my head hurt.

It looks like a hissy fit from a distance. But up close it isn't.
How are you doing that? Or maybe it's a brain thing. I've seen
similar posts in the past and my brain makes a snap judgement.

Refutation by non-sequitur? If you're going to talk about the separation of Church and State, it does not strike me as particularly pertinent to talk about the separation of Church and Walmart.

Again, I get this sensation that your being snippy.
Maybe, it's because I've argued with someone in the past...
and those feelings and sensations follow from that. Maybe.

Yeah, the Walmart thing was off topic.

 

[SezMe]

I do apologize for the tone. It wasn't intended to sound that way. I meant what I said, but I didn't mean for it to sound the way it apparently did. Serious question, and I really want to know the answer: What made it snotty? Answer via PM, if you think it'd be more appropriate.

I've gone back and reread your post a couple of times to check myself. My answer: the edit part. Suggesting I write my own ordinance. It did not come across as a serious suggestion, but rather a snide slap. The reason is that I know that writing a municipal ordinance is not easy. All kinds of considerations come into play, most of which are "unknown unknowns."

Now that I see in your latest post that you were quite serious about it, I can see how I misread your intent. I still think it is not possible for me to write a new city ordinance - although, to repeat, I have no intent to. So I apologize for reading you wrong.

I'm satisfied and done with this aspect of it, unless you want to pursue it further, in which case let's do it via PM.

 

[crimresearch]

"...it's not the laws, themselves, that are complicated, but rather the attorney's arguments as they try to bend and twist the law to their clients' advantage."



You're on a roll.

 

[Beady]

Now that I see in your latest post that you were quite serious about it, I can see how I misread your intent.

Since Synchronicity also seems to have misread it, it must have been an easy post to misread.

I'm satisfied and done with this aspect of it, unless you want to pursue it further, in which case let's do it via PM.

Unfortunately(!), we all seem to be in agreement, now, and I'm not into recipes, so there doesn't seem to be anything left to discuss.

See you next time around.

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: Re: The Loon and the Law

I'm sure his objection was based upon seperation of church and state.
At the local Walmart a christain group was putting up chick tracts and other bits of propaganda behind products that would pop out when an unsuspecting shopper removed the product. I'm quite certain that the separation clause came into play and they stopped doing it.

Hang on, though - the separation clause came into effect in Walmart? That's a private business, surely it wouldn't be affected?

 

[Skeptic]

The problem with the ACLU's interpretation of the "seperation" clause is that they apparently thinks the "government shall make no law establishing religion" is the same as "it should be illegal for anybody to display religion in a public space".

This is in theory no different than the Soviet or Chinese doctrine where religion is banned in public, although of course it is much different in practice (i.e. the ACLU will not use firing squads or labor camps against violators).

Sorry, guys, but when Scalia (I think) said, "The Constitution ensures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion", he was absolutely right. He didn't mean the government can force people to choose one of the available religions or else (and even if he did, he would consider atheism or humanism a "religion" anyway).

He meant that you have a right not to practice religion, but no right to be "protected" from the sight of other people practicing their religion.

 

[SezMe]

Sorry, guys, but when Scalia (I think) said, "The Constitution ensures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion", he was absolutely right. He didn't mean the government can force people to choose one of the available religions or else (and even if he did, he would consider atheism or humanism a "religion" anyway).

He meant that you have a right not to practice religion, but no right to be "protected" from the sight of other people practicing their religion.

If that is what he meant, I would have to agree without reservation. Take my case that started this thread. That guy has the right to do what he is doing. If, however, the government built the stand for him or helped him set up, or otherwise abetted his efforts, that would NOT be permissible. That, quite simplified, is my view of the difference between neutrality and endorsement.

 

[Solitaire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Loon and the Law

Originally posted by richardm
Hang on, though - the separation clause came into effect in Walmart?
That's a private business, surely it wouldn't be affected?

Well yes. But they're so big though,
almost a quasi-goverment in a way.
They have a policy against solicitation.

 

[Roadtoad]

Okay, maybe it's just me, but frankly, I don't see what the big deal was. Your "buddy," Paul, was probably off checking the tires, so to speak. As to the material, why was anyone obligated to accept it? Or were they? As long as someone can say, "No, thanks," I don't see where there's an offense.

Compare this with the Fred Phelps bastards, and you can't help but wish there were more guys like your friend Paul. I may not agree with him, but his goal is honorable, his methodology is charitable, and frankly, there are worse ways to spend your time.

 

[SezMe]

Compare this with the Fred Phelps bastards, and you can't help but wish there were more guys like your friend Paul. I may not agree with him, but his goal is honorable, his methodology is charitable, and frankly, there are worse ways to spend your time.

You'll notice, 'Toad, that I have had second thoughts and now completely agree wtih you. You might say I've been converted. Hey, we're all entitled to a mistake or two.

 

[Ladewig]

The problem with the ACLU's interpretation of the "seperation" clause is that they apparently thinks the "government shall make no law establishing religion" is the same as "it should be illegal for anybody to display religion in a public space".

Please don't mischaracterize the ACLU's position on the matter. Just last year, the ACLU defended church's right to hold baptisms in a river bordering a public park.ACLU.org

“This kind of confusion over religious expression in public places is not uncommon,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion.”