Thursday, December 28, 2006

Your Rights To Free Speech In WA.

Although I do not endorse the ACLU,
this is a good article written by the them

on Your Rights To Free Speech In WA

Monday, December 11, 2006

ACLJ On Freedom Of Speech

Study these link carefully concerning your freedom of speech...

Frequently asked questions CLICK HERE

Taking the Gospel To The Streets CLICK HERE

Your Right To Witness

Read, Download, and carry with at all times.
Free Speech PDF

Letter to the Management of Kent Station 12/7/06

Kent City codes

The following are relevant Kent City Codes that affect our activities. For the full text of each please see the City of Kent Website.

The text in italics are a commentary and suggested dialogue should you be challenged. This does not constitute legal advice. Please always be courteous when discussing this with a security guard, private citizen, business owner, or police.

Kent City Code:

8.05.140 Other exemptions.
The following shall be exempt from all provisions of KCC 8.05.090:

10. Sounds caused by natural phenomena and unamplified human voices.

It is our understanding that unamplified human voices means the human voice without electronic amplification.

If you understand otherwise, then please contact the police.

9.02.200 Public disturbance.
A. A person is guilty of public disturbance if he or she:
1. Causes a public nuisance disturbance or is in possession and control of property on which a public nuisance disturbance occurs. The following sounds are determined to be public nuisance disturbances:
c. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time and place so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of owners or possessors of real property.

It is our understanding that loud speech with the intent to communicate and/or persuade is not the same as yelling with the result of communicating a clear and present danger. It is further our understanding that loud communication is not unreasonable in that those who do not wish to hear do not have to listen. Further, so long as the communication is not heard within the building of business owners, then it is not unreasonable. The fact that some may be offended by the content of the communication is not sufficient to restrict that communication (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)). Finally, it is our understanding that public disturbance ordinances do not trump the Freedom of Speech granted by the First Amendment.

For further information: http://www.cfac.org/Lawyers/disturbingthepeace.php

If your understanding is otherwise, then please contact the police.

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Supreme Court Cases

United States Supreme Court Cases
These U.S. Supreme Court Cases are relevant to our exercise of Free Speech:

Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate, content neutral objectives.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).
Time, place and manner regulations must be narrowly tailored and must not be substantially broader than necessary to achieve a significant government interest.

Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939). The United States Supreme Court did not allow cities to completely forbid leaflet distribution in order to prevent littering. The objective of keeping the streets clean does not outweigh the right to distribute literature in public.

Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). The United States Supreme Court permitted a city to require a permit for parades as a reasonable means of maintaining public order.

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965). Public officials may not be given overly broad discretion to grant or deny permits or licenses for free speech.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.

Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). The United States Supreme Court did not allow a permit to include any restrictions on a speaker's right of free expression. Permits may not be used as a prior restraint on free speech activities. Inappropriate or illegal activities may only be punished after they have occurred.

Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992). A city may not consider the listeners' reaction to a speaker when permitting free speech activities.

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). Hecklers may not be allowed to veto a speaker's right of free speech. Police must control a crowd rather than arrest the speaker in order to maintain order. Regulations may be imposed on free speech to control traffic flow.

Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969). Peaceful marching, chanting, and singing is protected by the First Amendment.

Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Free speech expression may be regulated for noise content in appropriate places such as hospitals or schools while classes are in session. The general test is to ask whether the expressive activity is basically incompatible with the normal activities of a particular place at a particular time. Unamplified speech is permissible for "street preachers" on public streets.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Breakthrough At Kent Station.