“It seems unlikely that the absence of a permit would preclude criminals from knocking on doors and engaging in conversations,” Stevens wrote for the majority. It said Stratton’s ordinance unlawfully interfered with both anonymous and spontaneous speech and did little to address security concerns. I think we’ve got this,’” he said.įour months after oral arguments, the court issued an 8-1 decision against the permit rules. “That’s when I thought, ‘I think we’re going to win. What Brumley remembers best about oral arguments 20 years later is the calm that washed over him after one of the justices cracked a joke at the policymakers’ expense. They argued that Stratton’s rules interfered with religious freedom and the right to anonymous political speech the justices agreed to consider the latter concern. the ordinance was constitutionally acceptable and the 6th Circuit agreed,” Polidoro said.Īfter another failed dialogue with village leaders, the Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed to the Supreme Court. At both the district and circuit levels, judges sided with Stratton officials, ruling that most elements of the policy could remain in place. Some of those prayers were pleas for guidance after the Jehovah’s Witnesses lost in the lower courts. We prayed about it many, many, many times,” he said. Philip Brumley, another member of the legal team, said the attorneys prayed together regularly as the case worked its way through the courts. From a religious perspective, it’s offensive to go to man to ask permission to spread the message of the kingdom of God,” Polidoro said. “We believe Christ Jesus gave us a command to preach the good news. To Polidoro and others, the lawsuit was about more than defending constitutional rights. “A citizen shouldn’t have to go to the government to ask permission to go to their neighbor” to raise a concern or share what they believe, Polidoro said. The Jehovah’s Witnesses who challenged the policy said the process infringed on multiple parts of the First Amendment. Stratton did not charge for permits, but it did require salespeople, missionaries and essentially anyone else interested in visiting villagers, including trick-or-treaters, to preregister with the mayor’s office. Depending on the town you were in, you might have to provide anything from character witnesses to fingerprints to $25 in cash to gain the right to go door to door. who was in their community going from door to door,” he said.Ī Supreme Court brief filed in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outlined how difficult it could be to navigate anti-solicitation laws. “There was a heightened concern about security. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, support for such restrictions seemed to be picking up, Polidoro said. Throughout the 20th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other door-to-door missionaries had faced burdensome permitting requirements in communities large and small. But it was clear from the beginning that the battle in the Buckeye State had national implications, said Paul Polidoro, who argued against the policy in front of the Supreme Court. The 2002 case centered on the village of Stratton, Ohio, which had fewer than 300 residents at the time the restrictions were put in place. Through this case, they forced (the country) to live up to the ideals of the freedom of speech clause,” he said. The Witnesses are some of the folks who expose that. “Often, our practices don’t live up to our ideals. He added that the case also showed why it’s important to speak up in defense of constitutional rights, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly done. The decision sent a message to government officials trying to limit unpopular or controversial public expression, said Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at Brigham Young University. “It is offensive not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society, that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion. On June 17, 2002, the court ruled against a small Ohio town’s restrictions on door knocking, deciding that efforts to make religious missionaries, political canvassers and others obtain permits violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. As Jehovah’s Witnesses return to some forms of public ministry more than two years after the pandemic put them on hold, they’re marking the 20-year anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling that protected the right to share messages door to door.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |