I think Tim has pretty much accurately hit the nail on the head as to what I think is public and what is private, with two minor expections. In #4, Tim equates the requirement of wearing a costume with "banning prohibiting discussion of religion, or prohibiting politicking". I miss that connection.
Politicing and discussion of religion are protected by the First Amendment, requiring costumes is not. It's a false analogy. And in #5, I firmly agree that Mr. Gerten can regulate conduct, he just can't regulate speech. In other words, people politicting, collecting signatures or seeking donations can be required to act in a polite manner, must cease speaking to people if they do not wish to be spoken to and clearly cannot badger, chase or follow people. THe final question Tim asks, "Is soliciting donations "Free Speech" or "Commercial Activity?"", I think this requires further discussion. Let's give several examples. 1. Collecting for the DFL? 2. Collecting for Pro-Life Action Ministries? 3. Collecting to build a statue to Paul Winfield outside Metro Stadium? 4. Collecting funds to help make St. Paul Restuarnts Smoke Free. 5. Collecting for Christian Children's Network. 6. Collecting for Children's Home Society? 7. Selling candy bars to go to Band Camp. 8. Selling candy bars to have their band go to the Republican National Convention. Let's discuss these and see where they fall. Dan Dobson Summit Hill - Saint Paul Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:01:59 -0500 From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Public v. Private To: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mary asked some specific questions about the Farmers Market a while back. Prior to her post, Dan Dobson had answered some similiar questions. Here is my own interpretation of what his response would have been. http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/Week-of-Mon-20040705/003000.html >1. A private group rents public property in the park for a wedding. A relative shows up who was not invited. Otherwise the group is invitees only. The private group wishes to eject him. Can they do so? Would they be able to do so if the wedding party had allowed several other people to sit in who were not invited? It was my understanding, and I don't think that anyone is questioning this, that if someone rents public land for a private event with controlled attendance (a guest list or invitation only) that they have complete control over who attends and can accept or reject anyone that they choose. This is different from a public event sponsored by a private organization. The Farmers Market is a "PUBLIC" event, even if sponsored and financed by a private organization. It is "PUBLIC," because they have issued a public invitation for anyone to attend. It is the "PUBLIC" nature of the event, which might restrict their ability to exclude certain individuals or groups. I hope that I understood this correctly. >2. A private group rents public property in the park for a wedding. A stranger shows up who was not invited. The private group wishes to eject him. Can they do so? If they have already allowed others >to attend who weren't invited, then can they still selectively kick people out? By my understanding, this is a private event. No public invitation was issued. This group may admit or exclude anyone that they wish. >3. A private group rents public property in the park for a gay wedding. A stranger shows up and begins to talk to various attendees in a polite, yet firm manner, about how the couple are going to go to hell for their sin. Can the group eject him? I would assume so, given what has been discussed so far. >4. A private group rents public property for a celebration, allowing anyone and everyone to attend. Yet they wish to restrict conduct in certain ways - requiring costumes, or prohibiting discussion of religion, or prohibiting politicking. Are they allowed to do so? In my opinion, this is exactly the question that is being faced with the Farmers Market. I think that we generally agree on the "Wedding" examples given above, but when it becomes a "public" event, then the issue is murkier. I think that requiring costumes might be easier that dictating what people can say at the event. But, I'm not sure about the technicalities. >5. Mr. Gerten rents public property for a commercial enterprise, allowing anyone and everyone to attend. Yet he wishes to restrict conduct in certain ways. Is he allowed to do so? I think that the question is not about conduct, but about speech. No one, I think, has suggested that Mr. Gerten can't enforce a code of conduct - or ask that people not harasss other customers. What is being questioned, is their ability to say what they want to other customers? The other question that has been raised is - Is soliciting donations "Free Speech" or "Commercial Activity?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tim Erickson Hamline Midway [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
