Quote:

---

Judge rules against evangelist in free speech lawsuit


LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A Pentecostal evangelist familiar to both college campuses and courtrooms has lost his initial bid to speak at Murray State University in western Kentucky.

James G. "Brother Jim" Gilles of Symsonia, Ky., sued the university in 2006, claiming that MSU deprived him of his rights to free speech and to exercise his religion by rejecting his requests to preach at the Curris Center, a campus spot frequented by students and visitors.

In October 2004, the university told Gilles he needed sponsorship from a university organization or department because his talks were considered solicitation.

Russell wrote that Murray State isn't required to treat open areas of its campus as a public forum. And because the school's policy requires everyone to get a sponsor, Gilles can't make the case that his rights were violated, Russell wrote.

---

Quote:

---

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

"No matter how wonderfully suited the library lawn is to religious and other advocacy, Vincennes University could if it wanted bar access to the lawn to any outsider who wanted to use it for any purpose, just as it could bar outsiders from its classrooms, libraries, dining halls and dormitories. It wouldn't have to prove that allowing them in would disrupt its educational mission."

---

Quote:

---

In a regulatory environment the term nuisance embraces anything that results in an invasion of one's legal rights. A nuisance involves an unreasonable or unlawful use of property which results in material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or damage to another person or to the public.... Nuisances are sometimes called nuisances because they are remedied by abatement....

GRANDVIEW MUNICIPAL CODE: 2. "Public Nuisances" include but are not limited to the following: violations of zoning regulations, building code standards and regulations, utility regulations and standards, environmental regulations and standards, noncompliance with the city's comprehensive plan or planning goals under the Washington State Growth Management Act; violations of business license regulations, illegal discharges of sewage; the operation of offensive, odoriferous or unsanitary businesses; accumulations of refuse constituting fire or safety hazards; any land use activity which depreciates land values, is unsightly, creates excessive noise, fumes, odors, or unsanitary conditions, creates danger from fire and/or explosion, creates traffic hazards, or activities which pose a danger to public health, safety or welfare or the economic well-being of the community.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Ah ... you skipped an important phrase: "the school's policy" required a sponsor.

So we are back to school policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

If you cede that university policy gets to decide the use of the space (like the law says) then as I've said all along it depends on what the orders given to the cops were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But the larger question is this - Fletch, why WOULD you want a person who posed no threat and whose worst offence was being impolite - to be able to be arrested ? Do you really favor a police state as it appears you do ?

---

Quote:

---

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

"No matter how wonderfully suited the library lawn is to religious and other advocacy, Vincennes University could if it wanted bar access to the lawn to any outsider who wanted to use it for any purpose, just as it could bar outsiders from its classrooms, libraries, dining halls and dormitories. It wouldn't have to prove that allowing them in would disrupt its educational mission."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

"under the rules of trespass you continue to ignore" No, I addressed that many times already. My contention was that the event was 'free and open to the public', therefore his presence was acceptable. You were the one who kept trying to equate the campus to Sears or your living room, which it clearly is not.

---

Quote:

---

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2 you're just so full of bull I don't know where to start. A public park is not the same as my livingroom. And a dorm is not the same as a public sidewalk. I'm too busy to get into a long discussion with you. Suffice it to say that if you were in the FF 'verse you'd definitely be Alliance.

---

Quote:

---

I have citations to prove they can do that under basic property law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

I would argue they had the right, but that the policy was flawed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And the answer is, again - not quite. The organization has the right to set policy, and remove people for violating their policy. They DON'T have the right to remove anyone at will, for no reason at all. Because public property is property, but it's also the property of the public. (Unlike private property.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Not that they HAD the right in this case but only IF we assume your example. Hypothetical. Look it up, it's a good word.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

no reason at all

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
:roll eyes:

So evict me. Call the police. Taser me. Whatever.
.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Fletch, my response was HYPOTHETICAL to your HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

I really don't know why you got confused over your own post, which (as you may recall, though it was so long ago) began with if: If we found that there was a public harrassment policy ...


Which, btw, I also answered in the hypothetical, using the word would: I would argue they had the right ...I would further argue that those who support such a policy are de facto police-state supporters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Fletch, Finn, Geezer, Hero, BDN, Jong, Malbadinlatin, Rap -

I'm curious if you support policies that restrict non-threatening speech.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So, nitty gritty time - hypothetical situation - a person should be able to give a speech on campus, or on the street corner, or in the park - at any time, as long as that person doesn't interfere with business, threaten, impede, stalk, or damage. Right ?

"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
'Allowed to give a speech' means not being asked to leave. If you ask that person to leave, you are not allowing them to give their speech.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
In that case he'd be interfering. But if he was 10 feet away, not directing his speech at you, just up there on his soapbox, so to speak ... btw in a lot of parks one is allowed to 'reserve' a spot for a function. If you didn't reserve said spot, you're free to go somewhere else. If he follows, then he's stalking.

."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Based city statute he may be deemed a "public nuisance" if he is standing next to your park tables and preventing your from enjoying a birthday party. OTOH if he's off in the mid-distance somewhere, within earshot but not "at" your event, he's not a public nuisance.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:


My sense is that you like the idea of freedom in theory, until a person expresses a position you disagree with. Then you want restrictions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
He should have his say. Just b/c some may find his opinions objectionable is not a reason to keep him from saying them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
calling women wearing short skirts and makeup "prostitutes?"

Sounds like slander to me.
"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"any point of view with any teeth will offend someone? Is offence enough to pull back the soapbox?" No. But discrimination is.

---