anonymous ID: c54241 Aug. 8, 2018, 4:03 a.m. No.2508536   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8565 >>8596 >>8860

BAKER BAKER NOTABLE

 

USSC case that settles the problem of censorship by tech compaies.

 

"WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON"

 

"[June 17, 2002]

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

 

Petitioners contend that a village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy with- out first registering with the mayor and receiving a per- mit violates the First Amendment. Through this facial challenge, we consider the door-to-door canvassing regu- lation not only as it applies to religious proselytizing, but also to anonymous political speech and the distribution of handbills.

 

I

 

Petitioner Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., coordinates the preaching activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the United States and publishes Bibles and religious periodicals that are widely distributed. Petitioner Wellsville, Ohio, Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc., supervises the activities of approximately 59 members in a part of Ohio that includes the Village of Stratton (Village). Petitioners offer religious literature without cost to anyone interested in reading it. They allege that they do not solicit contributions or orders for the sale of merchandise or services, but they do accept donations.

 

Petitioners brought this action against the Village and its mayor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of several sections of Ordinance No. 1998–5 regulating uninvited peddling and solicitation on private property in the Village. Petitioners’ complaint alleged that the ordinance violated several constitutional rights, including the free exercise of religion, free speech, and the freedom of the press. App. 10a–44a. The District Court conducted a bench trial at which evidence of the administration of the ordinance and its effect on petitioners was introduced.

 

Section 116.01 prohibits “canvassers” and others from “going in and upon” private residential property for the purpose of promoting any “cause” without first having obtained a permit pursuant to §116.03. 1 That section provides that any canvasser who intends to go on private property to promote a cause, must obtain a “Solicitation Permit” from the office of the mayor; there is no charge for the permit, and apparently one is issued routinely after an applicant fills out a fairly detailed “Solicitor’s Registration Form.” 2 The canvasser is then authorized to go upon premises that he listed on the registration form, but he must carry the permit upon his person and exhibit it whenever requested to do so by a police officer or by a resident. 3 The ordinance sets forth grounds for the denial or revocation of a permit, 4 but the record before us does not show that any application has been denied or that any permit has been revoked. Petitioners did not apply for a permit.

 

A section of the ordinance that petitioners do not challenge establishes a procedure by which a resident may prohibit solicitation even by holders of permits. If the resident files a “No Solicitation Registration Form” with the mayor, and also posts a “No Solicitation” sign on his property, no uninvited canvassers may enter his property, unless they are specifically authorized to do so in the “No Solicitation Registration Form” itself. 5 Only 32 of the Village’s 278 residents filed such forms. Each of the forms in the record contains a list of 19 suggested exceptions; 6 on one form, a resident checked 17 exceptions, thereby excluding only “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and “Political Candidates” from the list of invited canvassers. Although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves to be “solicitors” because they make no charge for their literature or their teaching, leaders of the church testified at trial that they would honor “no solicitation” signs in the Village. They also explained at trial that they did not apply for a permit because they derive their authority to preach from Scripture. 7 “For us to seek a permit from a municipality to preach we feel would almost be an insult to God.” App. 321a.

 

Petitioners introduced some evidence that the ordinance was the product of the mayor’s hostility to their ministry, but the District Court credited the mayor’s testimony that it had been designed to protect the privacy rights of the Village residents, specifically to protect them “from ‘flim flam’ con artists who prey on small town populations.” 61 F. Supp. 2d 734, 736 (SD Ohio 1999). Nevertheless, the court concluded that the terms of the ordinance applied to the activities of petitioners as well as to “business or political canvassers,” id., at 737, 738.

 

moar at link

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/536/150

anonymous ID: c54241 Aug. 8, 2018, 4:11 a.m. No.2508565   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8599

>>2508536

What happened is the area in question was a gated area, but over time they kept the gates open and allowed people to come and go.

 

When JW came door to door they said they couldn't. The court ruled that once they let in everyone they could not now restrict certain people based on their beliefs.