cannabisnews.com: Promoting Pot in a Park or Limits of Free Speech 





Promoting Pot in a Park or Limits of Free Speech 
Posted by FoM on June 15, 2001 at 17:00:27 PT
Opinion
Source: Staten Island Advance 
In March of 1997 the city of Chicago denied the late Robert MacDonald's application for a permit to hold a rally in Grant Park. His purpose was to promote the legalization of marijuana. Now his successors on the "Windy City Hemp Development Board" have persuaded the Supreme Court to look at the city's ordinance, and to ponder once more the limits that may be imposed upon free speech. The case provides a classic example of the eternal conflict between individual freedom and public order. 
Here it is undisputed (1) that Grant Park is a public forum, (2) that the advocates of marijuana are engaged in core political speech, and (3) that Chicago has the power to regulate the time, place and manner of a rally in a park promoting pot. Under the city ordinance a rally may be forbidden if the parks superintendent rules that the applicant has violated the conditions of a prior permit. One such violation is that the applicant has failed to pay for damage to public property at a rally in the past. A permit may be denied if persons had lingered in the park after 10 p.m. The petitioners cite other flaws in the law: "There are no provisions for a hearing before or after a permit is denied. The applicant is not entitled to know who made the allegations, nor see any evidence of the alleged violations. He is not even allowed to attend whatever meeting or conference is held (if any) at which the decision to deny a permit is made." Joan Fencik, general counsel for the park district, conceded at one point in the case that a permit may be denied regardless of who caused damage to public property or who lingered after the closing hour. At the discretion of park authorities, a lifetime ban may be imposed upon a particularly troublesome applicant. (MacDonald never won another permit.) The potential for indirect censorship clearly is present. Even U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner conceded that the system "indeed creates such a danger." In an opinion last September, Posner nevertheless upheld the Chicago ordinance in full. He said: "The regulation challenged here does not authorize any judgment about the content of any speeches or other expressive activity -- their dangerousness, offensiveness, immorality, and so forth. It is not even clear that the regulation reduces the amount of speech. A park is a limited space, and to allow unregulated access to all corners could easily reduce rather than enlarge the park's utility as a forum for speech. Just imagine two rallies held at the same time in the same park area using public-address systems that drowned out each other's speakers." Posner found weighty interests on both sides of a constitutional balance. "Thus in this case there is, on the one hand, a danger in giving officials broad discretion over which political rallies shall be permitted to be conducted on public property, because they will be tempted to exercise that discretion in favor of their political friends and against their political enemies -- and the advocates of legalizing the sale of marijuana have very few political friends. "But, on the other hand, a permit requirement is a sine qua non of managing a park system in a way that will preserve the value of the parks for the general public. Parks are primarily for recreation rather than for political and ideological agitation. They cannot be preserved for the primary use for which they are intended if any group can hold a rally of any size and length of time with amplified sound of any volume." It's difficult to disagree with Posner's measured summary of the conflict. The trouble lies in fashioning safeguards against the kind of potential abuse concealed in the ordinance. The only safeguard that occurs to me lies in a provision ensuring timely judicial review of a denied application. This is easier said than done, for there may be many denials for many reasons, and the law moves in sluggish ways to work its will. I cannot suggest a bright line between liberty and order, and I doubt that one exists. It is not enough to say that Peter's right of free speech ends where John's nose begins. The issue here is far more complicated. Posner's opinion in the 7th Circuit is in sharp conflict with an opinion last year in the 11th Circuit involving a pro-marijuana rally in Gainesville, Fla. It is time for the high court to try again. And after a while it will be time for the high court to try once more. And then try again. Source: Staten Island Advance (NY)Published: Friday, June 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 Advance Publication Inc.Contact: editor siadvance.comWebsite: http://www.silive.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Windy City Hemp Development Boardhttp://americancannabissoc.org/wchdb.htmlCourt To Consider Chicago Park Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9902.shtml Marijuana-Law Opponents Suing Over Plan for Parade http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5173.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by greenfox on June 15, 2001 at 17:25:29 PT
and, of course..
(almost forgot!)t-minus 50 hours, 24 minutes, 30 some seconds.....;)-gf
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by greenfox on June 15, 2001 at 17:23:08 PT
Limits on freedom
So basically, an "anonymous person" can cause "damage" to ANY part of the park, and the person(s) holding the rally are held responsible. In any event, I'm sure that if Bushy Wushy were to hold a republican forum on these grounds, and one of their own spewed up intoxicating bile on park grounds, thereby causing "damage", they would certainly and merely be given a "warning". fairness? 2+2=5, ladies and gentlemen.sly in green, foxy in kind-gf
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment