- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Re: Man Arrested For Reading The Bible Out Loud
The reason that the captive audience doctrine comes into effect here (as put forth by the supreme court in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights) is because the people outside of the DMV had no realistic way to avoid listening to this guy, without suffering some kind of personal harm, such as being unable to do their business at the DMV. He has every right to speak, but they don't have to listen, and he put them into a position where they had to listen or suffer an unrelated harm. He doesn't have the right to do that to them.
The fact that he did it at the DMV, as opposed to on a public sidewalk, changes the level of first amendment protect that this preacher enjoys. A location traditionally or specifically designated for public discourse is much freer than one that is not. The fact that a location is open to the public doesn't actually make a difference. This why a government building is open for demonstrations, and the captive audience doctrine doesn't apply, because such places are traditionally (in this country anyway) subject to protests and demonstrations. That's the exact place you go to do that. A Starbucks, on the other hand, is not. Nor is a fire house, which is just as much government owned as a town hall.
A private citizen proselytizing on public property has jack to do with separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause would be at issue if, for instance, employees at the DMV began hanging "Jesus is da bomb, all praise be to Jesus" signs. That's not what's happening here.
I mean, seriously. Isn't every form of public protest, rally, or demonstration effectively some sort of "proselytization," if not necessarily about religion?
The reason that the captive audience doctrine comes into effect here (as put forth by the supreme court in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights) is because the people outside of the DMV had no realistic way to avoid listening to this guy, without suffering some kind of personal harm, such as being unable to do their business at the DMV. He has every right to speak, but they don't have to listen, and he put them into a position where they had to listen or suffer an unrelated harm. He doesn't have the right to do that to them.
The fact that he did it at the DMV, as opposed to on a public sidewalk, changes the level of first amendment protect that this preacher enjoys. A location traditionally or specifically designated for public discourse is much freer than one that is not. The fact that a location is open to the public doesn't actually make a difference. This why a government building is open for demonstrations, and the captive audience doctrine doesn't apply, because such places are traditionally (in this country anyway) subject to protests and demonstrations. That's the exact place you go to do that. A Starbucks, on the other hand, is not. Nor is a fire house, which is just as much government owned as a town hall.