Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Arab Christian Group Sues Over Anti-Leafleting Rule at Arab International 
Festival on Dearborn (Michigan) City Property:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_19-2009_07_25.shtml#1248222575


   You can read the [1]Complaint, the [2]Thomas More Law Center press
   release, and a [3]FoxNews.com article. To quote the last of these,

     The leader of an Arab Christian evangelical group filed suit
     against the city of Dearborn, Mich., claiming the city violated his
     First Amendment right to distribute literature on public property.

     The incident occurred last month at the city's annual Arab
     International Festival, an event that attracted 300,000 visitors
     and has provided a favorite evangelizing venue for the group,
     Arabic Christian Perspective, whose members have attended for the
     past five years.

     George Saieg, Arabic Christian Perspective's founder, says trouble
     started when he called the Dearborn police to let them know his
     group would be returning to the festival.

     City police told Saieg that, unlike in previous years, his group
     would not be allowed to distribute material on the sidewalks, and
     that Arabic Christian Perspective could either rent a stand at the
     festival or be assigned a specific location at which it could
     distribute its literature.

   My thoughts:

   1. If indeed the plaintiffs were trying to distribute material on
   public sidewalks that were generally open to the public, and

   2. if the would-be leafleters merely wanted to distribute leaflets
   rather than solicit money, then

   3. they would have a constitutional right to distribute leaflets �
   something that they have a right do even in �nonpublic fora� such as
   airports, and certainly on �traditional public fora� such as
   sidewalks.

   4. Even content-neutral bans on all distribution of materials would
   thus be unconstitutional.

   5. Content-based bans that exclude �political literature� (if such a
   ban was indeed instituted here, which the Complaint alleges) would be
   even more clearly unconstitutional, even if they applied to all
   political literature, or all noncommercial literature, or all
   political and religious literature. Plaintiffs assert that this ban
   was not applied evenhandedly to all political literature; I don�t know
   if they�re correct, but even if they�re not, a ban on handing out all
   political literature is still unconstitutional.

   6. Some content-neutral restrictions on leafleting that let people
   walk around and leaflet, but (say) limit the number of people in the
   walking group would be constitutional. But restrictions that require
   people to stay at fixed booths would generally not be constitutional,
   especially if the fixed places are in places that many festivalgoers
   wouldn�t visit (and if they cost money to rent).

   7. The matter would be different if a group is putting on its own
   rally or some such, even in a public park or a public square, and gets
   a permit that would allow only its own members or invitees on the
   property on which the group itself is speaking. In such a situation,
   the property could in effect be temporarily privatized, so that the
   group can express its own views without the interference of others.
   That, for instance, is why parade organizers (who have a valid parade
   license) can generally select who can participate in the parade, even
   though the parade proceeds down a city street.

   But if the group basically lets pretty much everyone use the sidewalk
   (as the Complaint alleges), and doesn't itself use the sidewalk for
   its own speech, then the sidewalk remains a traditional public forum
   or at worst (from the plaintiff-speakers' perspective) a nonpublic
   forum. Leafleting is generally constitutionally protected in both
   classes of forum. See [4]Parks v. City of Columbus, a case from the
   federal circuit (the Sixth) in which the event took place.

References

   1. http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CityofDearborn.pdf
   2. 
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=674
   3. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534301,00.html
   4. http://openjurist.org/395/f3d/643/parks-v-city-of-columbus-c-g

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to