DAVEH: > As I previously mentioned, I'm no lawyer. > However, I suspect there is more to this > "easement" situation than is readily apparent. > I suspect the lawyers will dig deep into this issue.
The legal matter here is very clear. It is not difficult to understand, but many lawyers not familiar with Constitutional law do not understand it and try to play legal games to get their own way. All Constitutional lawyers understand that a public easement carries with it the freedom to speak both in print and with voice. DAVEH: > Even LDS folks do not have the right to go into Temple > Square and start a 'street meeting', even if they are > preaching LDS theology by the book. Actually, they do have a legal right to do this right now because of the public easement. However, if the mind of the LDS church is to do as you say here and outlaw any activity like this, then this would be a very wicked situation. LDS folks should have the right to go to this public forum and start a street meeting if they like. If they don't like something said in the Temple, or if they disagree with what some official said, they should have the right to address the problem right outside the Temple. That is what freedom of speech is all about. It protects us from error and from tyranny. Once that freedom is taken away, all manner of deception and iniquity becomes possible. David Miller wrote: >> The issue is whether or not there will be >> freedom of speech for everyone. DAVEH: > It is where the freedom may be exercised. This freedom to speak covers all traditional public fora, which includes street corners, public parks, etc. If there were no public easement, then the LDS church would be in a position to stop all pedestrian traffic in this area and do whatever they want with it. Clearly, the previous deal had concerns about the public losing access to this property and so the deal was struck with public access continuing in this area. Both sides agreed to this. David Miller wrote: >> Keep in mind that a public street was closed >> for this project. DAVEH: > And the city was compensated for that closure. The city was compensated for closing the area to vehicular traffic and allowing the LDS church to do their thing there, but the city was not compensated for closing this to pubic access. In fact, it was just the opposite. Public access was agreed upon by the LDS church and the city. It was part of the deal. The reason I bring up the street closure was to bring to mind that the history of this area indicates that the public had access to it. Generally, in situations like this, it is desireable to allow pedestrian traffic to continue through the area. If you allow public pedestrian traffic, then you have to allow legal public activities, which includes free speech. DAVEH: > The question seems to be how "public access" is defined. Is it > universally encompassing, or does it have limits. For instance, > vehicular traffic will be restricted. Public access is not some nebulous undefined thing. I think it is very well defined in constitutional law. Of course, vehicular traffic may be restricted, but freedom of speech cannot be restricted. You can't say, "we want to allow public access, but we don't want to allow the public to speak or hand out literature." Such a position clearly shows a rejection of freedom of speech which is federally protected in this country. DAVEH: > Then you have some knowledge of the legalities of such > matters, DavidM? Yes I do. I've been arrested because of actions just like this, so out of necessity I have become very familiar with the legalities of these matters. When it becomes personal like that, one educates himself rather quickly. DaveH wrote: > Do the owners of those table lose some of their rights > when they place their tables on the sidewalk? No, you are looking at this all wrong. That's what the business owners think. They think that they are "losing their rights." The problem is that they are encroaching upon the public's rights and don't realize it. Everyone tends to think of themselves as good people and doing what is good and right for the community. So when a business owner like this puts tables out, he thinks he is doing a service to the community. He is adding something beneficial to the community. Of course, he also hopes to make a monetary profit, but even that he looks at as good for the community, so he can provide jobs for people. Then the dirty, smelly homeless guy sits on one of his tables to eat a sandwich. Or the homeless preacher / prophet arrives and stands opposite his tables and delivers a message from God. Suddenly, the business owner thinks he is losing his rights. He has no control over what happens with his customers. He spent all this money putting tables out there, and these are his customers, so what gives these homeless guys the right to do anything here? From his perspective, they are taking away his rights. The truth is that he has been encroaching upon the rights of the public by putting his tables out there on public property. Truly he does add to the community if he does so recognizing the freedom and right of the public to continue as they always have. It's great to have tables and food there. But if the business owner seeks to control what happens there as if it were private property, then he is in the wrong. What he is doing is almost like stealing the land away from the poor and converting into a use that betters him and other wealthy people like him. Our laws protecting freedom of speech protect the poor. DaveH wrote: > What's your experience.....is it universally viewed/decided > by the courts (or enforcement bureaus) as favorable to the > street preachers? Or do the business owners win some of > the decisions? Sometimes, with good lawyers, the business owners win in the lower courts, but they always lose in the higher courts. It is universally decided by the higher courts that the public has a right to free speech in traditional public fora. Unless the LDS church gets rid of the public easement, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Their only recourse is to have the city council remove the public easement. In my experience with city council meetings in Tampa, I agree with the mayor of Salt Lake City that the SLC council has already decided to do this. Having public hearings to investigate and consider a matter usually indicates that they have already decided. Unless something earth shattering is brought up that convinces them that they should not remove the public easement, they will do it. The public hearings give the appearance of fairness and openness with regard to a controversial matter. The problem is that these council members trust the LDS church to do what is right with the property. What if it were proved that the church would completely close off pedestrian traffic completely, say, put up a gate and guard and keep people out. What if it were further proved conclusively that the city council members themselvers, personally, and much of the public would NEVER be allowed to walk on that property ever again. If the council would still vote yes to removing the public easement if this were the case, then I would say that they were probably doing the right thing. On the other hand, if their vote would be to keep the public easement in such a situation, then they need to seriously consider that they are being derilect in their public responsibility in removing the easement. They are allowing their own acceptance and personal trust in the LDS church to cloud their judgment in the matter. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the LDS church is going to do what I just mentioned. I'm just creating a hypothetical situation to try and help take the Mormon bias out of the decision making process. If the public easement is removed, the LDS church could do whatever it wants, which means exactly as I stated above. Therefore, a purely legal decision would not involve trust regarding what the LDS church will or will not do once the pubic has turned over their easement to it. Legal decisions about removing a public easment need to consider this because we don't know the future. If the above scenario of permanently blocking all the public from accessing this property is not an acceptable option, then the public easement should remain, in my opinion. DAVEH: > As I explained in a parallel post to Glenn, we > prefer to avoid confrontational evangelism. It does not have to be "confrontational." There are lots of people who don't like confrontational approaches to evangelism, but they still respect the right of others to voice their dissent. You could just set up tables with literature to share the truth about your religion. Surely it would get read if people are motivated enough to come speak on the property there. DaveH wrote: > Have you ever seen an LDS person protesting about > anything? It might be uncommon for LDS to exercise free speech in this way, but that only establishes the fact that they are in the position to be unappreciative of this great American liberty of free speech. Those who don't exercise freedom of speech need to be careful that they don't overlook its great value to the poor in our community. David Miller wrote: >> Don't you see a problem here with objectivity? DAVEH: > No. For someone who has always admitted to being biased by the LDS philosophy, I'm surprised at your answer here. Your trust in the LDS church and its representatives is showing through. What if I were talking about Waco, Texas and how every city council member was a member of the Branch Davidian church? Would there possibly be a chance that they might lack objectivity in a decision that benefitted that church? DAVEH: > It is called 'representative government'. If the > citizens of SLC don't want LDS biases elected, > they shouldn't vote for them. If a majority elect > those folks, then should their (the majority) interests > not be represented? I'm not questioning the fact that these representatives were elected into office. I'm not questioning the fact that these are probably good people on the council, because I don't know them. What I do recognize is that they were not voted in for only this one decision. Furthermore, they each have a personal interest in the church and so in this particular decision, they should be very careful not to allow their personal relationship with the church cloud their judgment to do what is in the best interest of the general public, which includes non-Mormons. Giving up the public easement benefits the public in NO WAY. It ONLY benefits the LDS church. Think about it. You might claim that the public is getting money for it, but that is a kind of ruse. Did the public put up a "for sale" sign with regard to their personal liberties? "Freedom of speech for sale to the Mormon church, if the price is right." No, I don't think so. This movement to take away freedom of speech was instigated by the Mormon church, will be voted upon by an all Mormon city council, and even the price will be determined by Mormons. You still don't see any problem with objectivity? David Miller wrote: >> right now a homeless person can go onto the plaza, DAVEH: > Do you mean the homeless person can live on that > street? I'm not sure about that. No, I mean he can walk onto the plaza, and perhaps sit down for awhile, eat his lunch, talk with people. David Miller wrote: > but after the church buys it, he will be told > to go somewhere else if he tries to go on it. DAVEH: > He may be told that now, if he tries to sleep on it. I'm not talking about sleeping there. Once the public easement is taken away, the poor will have no rights to access the property at all. A poor man, even Jesus Christ himself, could be facing arrest just for walking on the property. David Miller wrote: >> I'm against the private conversion of public land like >> this because ultimately the poor are oppressed by >> such actions. >> >> One thing is clear, freedom will be lost DAVEH: > Nonsense. Nobody's freedom is lost. It is simply restricted > to a location outside those boundaries. As I understand it, > the property in question is one block long. That's how freedom is lost, Dave, one block at a time. Think about it. David Miller wrote: >> The issue here strictly concerns freedom. DAVEH: > To me it seems the question is one of property rights. > The freedoms are not taken away, but rather moved > to the perimeter of that property. The question of property rights has already been decided. If the land is privately owned, the owner may regulate activities on it as he sees fit. If there is a public easement, then he cannot violate the rights of the public. The point is that if the LDS church gets its way, a poor man faces being arrested and put in jail if he tries to speak on this property. Only the wealthy land owner will have rights. This whole situation gives freedom to the one with money who can buy power to have control while at the same time taking away freedom from the one without money who cannot offer a higher price to the city council in order to keep the public easement. David Miller wrote: >> What would Jesus do? DAVEH: > He tossed the bad guys out of the Temple. Outside they > could do what they wanted, but the Lord did not want > them inside to defile the Temple. Did anyone in this situation demand the right to come into your Temple to preach Jesus Christ? We are only asking that our present right to preach outside your Temple not be taken away. Your comments are provoking me to reconsider and reassess what is going on here. Perhaps I need to follow the example of Jesus and go into your Temple and cast out the people who are defiling God's program there? :-) Just kidding. The Jewish Temple had an outer court called the court of the Gentiles. It was in this area that both men and women, Jew and Gentile, were allowed. It was this traditional public forum that allowed Christianity to flourish. If you read in the book of Acts, the early believers met at the Temple daily. It would be this outer court of the Gentiles where they did their public ministry on a daily basis. They were not allowed to go into the Temple building itself whenever they wanted, only into this outer court. This freedom was protected by Judaism and Jesus would never have tried to take away this right. Jesus used this freedom himself to teach that which was unpopular with the established ecclesiastical powers. His apostles likewise used it. The LDS church at the least should think of this plaza area like the court of the Gentiles that surrounded the Temple. They should desire freedom for everyone and protect the freedom of everyone. Instead, they seem to be concerned only about freedom for Mormonism. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
