Preacher fights ban on spreading gospel on Atlanta sidewalks

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Jeff Martin, Associated Press
 Updated 3:46 pm, Wednesday, December 27, 2017

ATLANTA (AP) — A Georgia preacher who says he was barred from public sidewalks and feared arrest for spreading the gospel on the fringes of a large outdoor concert in Atlanta is challenging the restrictions in court.

In a federal lawsuit, Eric Love says his free speech rights were violated outside the Shaky Beats music festival, which drew thousands in May to downtown Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park.

Love is asking a judge to decide whether the Georgia World Congress Center Authority and its police force can prohibit preaching from the surrounding sidewalks. The authority oversees the park, which was created for the 1996 Olympic Games.

The authority has cited a Georgia law that allows it to ban solicitation and other activities on public sidewalks and streets bordering the park when large events are held. That amounts to an unreasonable ban on free speech, one of Love's lawyers, Terry Lloyd, maintains in the suit.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Preacher-fights-ban-on-spreading-gospel-on-12457516.php

[Xolodno]

1. Most of the time these bans are in result of...

...littering, such as shoving religious tracts at everyone who promptly toss them on the ground.

Or, as a nuisance...some guy telling everyone they are going to hell with a bull horn to make sure he's heard while interrupting businesses such as restaurants, shops, etc.

Sometimes they are public safety hazards, taking significant real estate space on public side walks when in a group....forcing people to walk in the street to get around them.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Throw him in jail until the Second Coming

[Matthew28]

3. sounds like a good idea

Would make them spend their time better.

[TygrBright]

4. Gosh, this guy needs to get a little solidarity from the Church of Satan!

I bet they'd be happy to share the sidewalks with him, passing out little Baphomet keychain fobs and Satanic Bible verse tracts, and they'd be right there with him confronting the po-pos about their First Amendment rights!

Any CoS clergy listening?

helpfully,
Bright

[Red Mountain]

5. As an agnostic with absolutely no interest in his message........

As long as he's not using amplification or hitting people with signs how can this possibly be an issue?

Why should any American be forbidden to stand in a public space (not determined to be limited access due to security concerns....overused excuse but whatever in this context) and loudly proclaim whatever they believe?

[Submariner]

6. They already have churches, mosques, temples, and the Houston astrodome

to sell all that imaginary sky people bullshit. They need to keep it out of public view and stop offending people with public displays of all the god shit.

I stay out of churches just so I don't have to see it. Don't force it on me out in public. Just makes me hate that make believe shit all the more.

[melm00se]

7. 1st amendment protects their right to free speech

sorry you don't like it.

[atreides1]

11. Perhaps

But his own holy book denounces the practice of public prayer! So, he is using his right to free speech to violate the teachings of Christ...seems like his only interest is in yelling at people and not delivering a message!!!

I think the 1st Amendment is very important, what I don't like is when it's used by hypocrites like this street preacher!!!

[X_Digger]

17. Rights have no meaning if they aren't protected for those you disagree with.

Popular speech needs no protection, it's popular.

Free speech has to protect the assholes, the discomforting speaker, the cringiest crap if it's to have any meaning.

There's no asterisk next to the first amendment that says, "Not for hypocrites."

[MarcA]

18. Disturbing the Peace and harassment of others is not protected speech.

Or perhaps it is, in which case hopefully the nation that replaces
the ruins of this one will learn a valuable lesson.

[X_Digger]

19. Ahh, the cop's trump card -- 'disturbing the peace'. It means whatever the fuck the cops says.

Funny, nowhere in the article does it mention harassment, or disturbing the peace.

But it's always surprising to see DU'ers on the wrong side of civil liberties.

[MarcA]

21. A lawyer stating that his client "only speaks loud enough to be heard

by those near him" is open to interpretation. Whatever a cop says And
whatever a lawyer says. "The wrong side of civil liberties" is your opinion.

[X_Digger]

22. Not familiar with actual 'disturbing the peace' charges, are you?

You might not want to tout it as a good thing, if you're actually for civil liberties.

Perhaps you should go do some research. Search for protesting and disturbing the peace. Assuming you actually care, you'll have your eyes opened how political speech and legal protest has repeatedly been stifled under the umbrella charge, 'disturbing the peace'.

Or you could, you know, remain in the dark.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

33. "But it's always surprising to see DU'ers on the wrong side of civil liberties."

Sadly, no it isn't.

I've seen thread after thread after thread at DU where the poster says "I'm in favor of free speech, but...," and it becomes apparent that the free speech that he is in favor of is speech that is in agreement with what he thinks. Speech that disagrees with what he thinks turns out to be not so free at all.

So I can see I have post this picture again:



Thanks for trying. It's a struggle.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Sadly, we have always had a certain number of "Ronald Reagan liberals":

Last edited Thu Dec 28, 2017, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

They will defend to the death your right to say or do things they agree with...

[jl_theprofessor]

23. Don't talk

if you don't know what you're saying. If you're going to reference something, know the content. Christ says pray in private. Christ also says proclaim the Gospel. Christ didn't limit his sermons to religious institutions.

All of this ignores the fact that putting limits on speech to what you find acceptable is dangerous.

[LanternWaste]

36. Literalism is a convenient thing...

"But his own holy book denounces the practice of public prayer!"

Literalism is a convenient thing... we mock others for its use when we practice the same; only our biases maintain the pretense of difference.

[SergeStorms]

28. There's a proper place to exercise that right.

Is my right to free speech protected if I yell FIRE in a movie theater? Is my right to free speech protected if I go to this guy's church and attempt to convert his parishioners to Scientology?

That's the issue here. Not that he was a right to free speech, because I think we can all agree that he does. The issue is where he is allowed to exercise that right to free speech, and there are limitations to that.

[ClarendonDem]

29. He has the right to free speech anywhere in the public arena

Which includes sidewalks. Sure, there are limits, but this one strikes me as unconstitutional.

[X_Digger]

30. Yes, actually, you can. Stop using that example. It's an odious case that was overturned 40 yrs ago.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

You can stand on the sidewalk in front of his church and try to convert his parishioners. That would be protected speech as well.

Or did you not realize that this case was about a public space?

[melm00se]

31. Facts, as presented in the article, are:

1) the man in question was on the public sidewalk
2) There is a Georgia law that allows it (the state) to ban solicitation and other activities on public sidewalks and streets bordering the park when large events are held.
3) The was no evidence/statement as to the state's reasoning just the fact that the police "confronted" the complainant and "detained" 2 of his friends.
4) #2 is being challenged on 1st amendment grounds and based upon the evidence presented, the complainant will more than likely prevail unless the state can prove a compelling reason (like public safety).

Please keep in mind that the courts (the Supreme Court especially) are extremely liberal when it comes to 1st Amendment cases. The state must meet an very high bar to ban the exercise of free speech. It is not sufficient to say "public safety" or "disturbing the peace" or some other rhetorical pablum.

What disturbs me the most is the elastic vision of Constitutionally protected rights that infects many here at DU: "it's only a right when I agree with it".

[shenmue]

8. And your problem is?

[Kaleva]

10. And we already have DU and Daily Kos so we are fine too.

No need to offend people by going out on the streets.

[paleotn]

13. As long as their not making a nuisance of themselves...

they're fun to screw with. Heck, even if they are making a nuisance of themselves, they're fun to screw with. Of course, I know their playbook better than many of them so I have the advantage.

[X_Digger]

20. There is no right to not be offended. Get over it. n/t

[jl_theprofessor]

25. You have no right in public

To be free of speech you don't like. Limiting the rights of individuals to free speech and exchange of ideas in the public is dangerous.

[LanternWaste]

35. I feel the same about politics: imaginary, self-destructive, more harm than good...

"Don't force it on me out in public. Just makes me hate that make believe shit all the more...."

I feel the same about politics: imaginary, self-destructive, more harm than good... and all the other vague, melodramatic pejoratives people use.

No doubt, you will apply your sentiment consistently to all imaginary human constructs, yes?

Or just simply limit the application of law to things you have a bias against.

[Submariner]

37. All things religion set me off

Bernie Law, who should have done life without parole at Concord or Walpole state prisons, was allowed to flee to the vatican years ago. Bernie is now getting the royal funeral sendoff treatment, usually reserved for cardinals that did not aid and abet in the cover up of child rape, from Fake Pope Frankie today. So I'm particularly pissed at religion stuff this week.

So to answer your question, I have a bias against this god religiosity thing that lets clergy rape children and get away with it, and threads that discuss things like these sidewalk god hawkers set me off.

[Locrian]

9. I agree

Regardless of the message - I support public accessibility

[djg21]

45. He cant obstruct pedestrian traffic.

So long as the law being cited is one of general applicability and is applied in a content neutral fashion, it likely is lawful.

[keithbvadu2]

12. Then he would not mind someone preaching some theology right beside him that goes against his own.

Then he would not mind someone preaching some theology right beside him that goes against his own.

[paleotn]

14. Hand out heathenistic flyers in front of his church.

Drives them crazy. They figure the 1st Amendment only applies to their particular brand of bullshit.

[jl_theprofessor]

24. Yes

That's your right. Not sure what the issue is.

[Cryptoad]

15. knowing a little abt Hotlanta,,,,,I bet the preacher was,,,

doing more than just preaching,,,,,!

[X_Digger]

16. Going to be a slam dunk win (says this atheist civil rights activist.) n/t

[brooklynite]

26. I hate everything these preachers rant about...

...and I'll defend to the death their right to rant about them.

[Roy Rolling]

27. Free Speech

He has the right to speak. I have the right to walk away. That's how compromise and freedom works. Inserting the power of the government into that equation should be an easy rejection for progressives. How could anyone support having the police be the referee of a peaceful conversation between two people? That's just inviting trouble and unnecessary government interference.

[aka-chmeee]

32. When my dog spreads the gospel on the sidewalk,

the law says I've got to clean it up.

[niyad]

41. oh wow. I love your sig line gif!!

[niyad]

34. what about MY right not to be annoyed by these spewing assholes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. You have no right not to be annoyed and/or offended

[niyad]

40. guess that means no dropping hot coffee or a cup of ice on them then.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Imitating the actions of a bunch of virulent racists? Really?

Indeed, we become what we hate...

[X_Digger]

43. That would be assault. Go ahead and try.

[X_Digger]

44. Where is that right protected? Free clue: it isn't- it doesn't exist.

Where do people get this idea that they have a right to not be offended or annoyed?

Seriously? Where the fuck does that come from?!?

[greggrose]

47. zoning laws...

...brother, zoning laws. (half a young goat-ing)

[uppityperson]

48. ++++++

[aka-chmeee]

46. Perhaps, since their friends, the "Right" invented them,

They could be directed to a Free Speech Zone; Say, in a remote corner of a long term parking lot at the nearest airport

[bluestarone]

49. easy one to figure out

if you don't like it WALK AWAY!!!! if he's not hurting anybody just let them be. These rights were fought for by all veterans! WE COULD END UP LIKE NORTH KOREA