IGF contributing writer Dale Carpenter blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy site that a Minnnesota district judge denied a temporary restraining order sought by Twin Cities Pride (TCP) to prevent an anti-gay preacher from distributing literature and displaying signs inside the park where TCP has a permit for the annual gay pride festival.
A park is usually a public place, but apparently TCP is paying for the right to use the park to hold its festival. As one commenter over at Volokh asks, "If the Pride event must permit this anti-gay preacher access to their event, what stops hundreds of others from joining him and converting the Pride event into an anti-gay event?"
I think the U.S. Supreme Court got this one right when in 1995 (and in opposition to LGBT activists) it decided that the organizers of Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade (and, by extension, organizers of other parades) had a right to exclude a gay Irish group from their event. I disagree with the Paddy's Day parade organizers, but I think it was their right. Just as it is TCP's right to exclude from their event the anti-gay preacher.
More. Okay, a park is not a parade. To the extent that that pride event's area was not closed off, I'm willing to backtrack on this one.
9 Comments for “Expressing Whose Message?”
posted by BobN on
The problem with the ruling, it seems to me, isn’t so much that he’s allowed in — it is a public event — or that he’s allowed to walk around saying whatever he wants in a public park. The problem is that the organization is being forced to let him do what they won’t let anybody do: distribute literature without renting a booth. I’m all for the First Amendment, but the restriction on passing stuff out isn’t about content, it’s about crowd control, littering, and encouraging booth rental, all perfectly rational, reasonable, time-tested concerns.
posted by tim on
I disagree. TC Pride does choose who participates in its “celebrations” and its parade (its actually a major complaint of the organizers). But the festival itself is in a public park. There are no turnstyles or checkpoints. There are no restrictions on who enters or leaves the park. To limit access to the park to a particular geographic is not only stupid but completely impractical. And everyone is handing out leaflets and buttons of sorts. Why is one group handing out leaflets that state a different opinion such a horrible thing? It isn’t. Do you actually propose questioning everyone who enters and leaves the park? Do you perhaps propose searching everyone? That is against everything that Pride stands for and what the 1st amendment stands for. In short Miller – I’m calling you and the pride organizers as first rate cowards.
And it should be noted that pride weekend went forward with no issues. I should know – I volunteered and was there the entire weekend.
posted by BobN on
“everyone was handing out…”
People without a booth?
posted by james on
well i say this give us the right to go to a church meeting and protest there.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Stephen, I am glad we agree. I made the same point about the Hurley case, in a post at the GLAA Forum blog on Friday, June 25. Here’s a link:
http://tinyurl.com/2eef6px
posted by Jorge on
A difference: Twin Cities Pride wants to exclude people from a public space, not an event. The judge’s reasoning that TCP can create “free speech zones” is an awkward of making a solid point: they can exclude the preacher and protesters from their event to some extent, but if it’s taking place in a public area, it’s a public area, they can’t exclude people from the park entirely.
I also think the fact that they are paying $36,000 for the permit is a little different than being awareded a permit to use an event for free or a more nominal fee. They are purchasing a service from the city; it’s not something available to everyone equally. If all permits for public events in Minneapolis cost this much, that’s a significant infringement on free speech, but otherwise they don’t have any right to get a good value for their money.
Finally, it is the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board that is setting the rules here, and changing them this year. They issue the permit, they make the guidelines. I think it is highly inappropriate for Twin Cities Pride, if they are dissatisfied with the conditions of the permit, to accept them and then sue to get them changed.
My strong reservation about this ruling is that, as implied in this post, I believe it threatens the free speech rights of Twin Cities Pride. But that threat can be measured on a case-by-case basis depending on the size and behavior of the opposing protest group.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thank you for clarifying this rather essential point, Tim!
I’d been sort of following the story on Volokh Conspiracy, but it was never really clear to me whether the “Pride event” was in a more or less roped-off section of the park with some degree of control over entry, or if pretty much anyone could wander through.
(I know that the DC Pride event has typically had both a free-to-the-public “open section” and a paid-entry fenced/cordoned section. As far as I know, this was purely about being able to have beer vendors at the event, by excluding anyone under 21 from the fenced section.)
posted by niptuck. on
it was never really clear to me whether the “Pride event” was in a more or less roped-off section of the park with some degree of control over entry, or if pretty much anyone could wander through.
posted by JD on
Paying money to use a place and then being forced to allow unsavory characters in the premises. Only in America!