Boobirds In Brigham Sue Over "Free-Speech" Zones

[USU78]

It could still be about safety, but by turning it into a legal issue, the protestors have pushed the safety issue to secondplace in the government's mind. It's not like governments are never overcautious in their choices to protect people. In Canada, a noncola coloured soda can't have caffeine in it just so that no one will accidentally partake of the drug, so root beer can have it but Mountain Dew cannot. Simply being on the label and expecting people who buy it to read it is not enough. I see this example as too much government concern myself. If a company sued for the right to put caffeine in a light coloured soda and won, it doesn't mean that the issue wasn't about safety in the first place.

The coward is the one who beats up on the little guy who lacks resources for the fight. The ACLU have always done this: they love to beat up on little towns and small school districts. BC doesn't have the resources for the fight. The ACLU has all but unlimited resources as compared to BC. BC doesn't have a full-time civil attorney. The ACLU is one of the nation's bigger law firms. It's a hold up plain and simple.

Of course BC agreed not to enforce its ordinance. Two hearings in Federal Court and BC's budget is busted.

[DavidB]

Webbles, SCOTUS precedent demostrates that without evidence showing a particular group behaves a certain speech limitations are likely to be unconstitutional.

[california boy]

The coward is the one who beats up on the little guy who lacks resources for the fight. The ACLU have always done this: they love to beat up on little towns and small school districts. BC doesn't have the resources for the fight. The ACLU has all but unlimited resources as compared to BC. BC doesn't have a full-time civil attorney. The ACLU is one of the nation's bigger law firms. It's a hold up plain and simple.

Of course BC agreed not to enforce its ordinance. Two hearings in Federal Court and BC's budget is busted.

That is sad to hear. I was hoping BC let protesters pass out their junk for the right reason, freedom of speech. A couple of protesters on the street, not blocking anyone but expressing their constitutional right of free speech is hardly the same as screaming fire in a crowded building. If this was all just a issue of safety, were there signs posted that all people were not allowed to stand on the sidewalk and linger? Was law enforcement requiring everyone to keep moving?

Look I get that the church would rather not have distractions while showing off their sacred temples. But this all seems like an attempt to control their own personal message at a place that they want visitors to experience a very spiritual feeling. I get that, but ti all sounds a little made up safety issue to me. It is not like there were hundreds of people blocking the entrance and stopping people from participating. From what I have read, there were only a handful of people passing out pamphlets. I have yet to see any photos or evidence of people being forced to walk in the streets to get around the protesters. If I am wrong, show me the evidence not the rhetoric.

[thesometimesaint]

california boy:

I don't get the Church connection, other than a good many of the BC city counsel are probably Mormon. Other than that I agree.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Don't violate someone's Constitutional Rights and you(not literally you) don't have to worry about paying the price.

[USU78]

USU78:

Don't violate someone's Constitutional Rights and you(not literally you) don't have to worry about paying the price.

Puhlease . . . free speech zones have been enforced by Courts many, many times. They have been found not to violate the Ist Amendment, therefore nobody's rights are at risk: they still have the right to speak out, just not in a particular place at a particular time. The ACLU doesn't like them, of course, and since they keep losing against people with resources, they beat up on people without resources. They are bullies, just like the protestors on Temple Square are bullies, and the boobirds in Brigham are bullies.

[DavidB]

Puhlease . . . free speech zones have been enforced by Courts many, many times. They have been found not to violate the Ist Amendment, therefore nobody's rights are at risk: they still have the right to speak out, just not in a particular place at a particular time. The ACLU doesn't like them, of course, and since they keep losing against people with resources, they beat up on people without resources. They are bullies, just like the protestors on Temple Square are bullies, and the boobirds in Brigham are bullies.

if you know about free speech zones being.g upheld, then you also know that there is no comparison to people blocking abortion clinics and a group handing out pamphlets.

Now I could be wrong. In the mean time can you demonstrate how this group of Church goers compares to groups where restrictions have been upheld?