Quantcast

«

»

Sep 17 2013

Appeals Court Upholds Right to Hand Out Literature

A three judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the right of a group of atheists to hand out copies of Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian at a Christian music festival in Minneapolis. The suit was filed against the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. You can read the full ruling here.

The event was held in Loring Park and the ruling notes that the Christian music festival did not have exclusive use of the park, which remained open to the public during the event. The atheist group had been allowed to distribute literature there from 1995 until 2009, when they were denied a permit to do so. Various attempts at a compromise were tried over the next two years, but in 2011 the atheist group filed suit. The board says that the regulation is necessary to prevent congestion in the park, but the court noticed a problem with that claim:

The Board contends that restricting literature distribution to booths during the Festival is narrowly tailored to serve its significant interest in maintaining the orderly flow of people, providing access for security and emergency vehicles, and facilitating the activities of the participants of the Festival…

The Board relies on the Executive Director’s assertions that “there were nine ambulance calls on one day of the 2011 Pride Festival,” and that paths must be clear to allow for “the staging and delivery of supplies to food and beverage or other vendors.” The Board thus reasons that the restriction on literature distribution serves the legitimate interest in crowd control, because literature distribution from outside of booths increases congestion and congestion impedes emergency, security, and delivery vehicles.

In the abstract, controlling crowds can constitute a significant governmental interest that bears directly on public safety. We disagree with the district court, however, that the Board made a satisfactory showing that the literature distribution regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest in this instance.

The Board presented little evidence that forbidding literature distribution furthers a significant governmental interest at the Festival…were required to remain in their booths when handing out literature or materials.” This affidavit suggests that above all the Festival participants were unhappy that their own literature distribution was confined to booths. It makes little sense for participants to have complained simultaneously that (1) literature distribution outside of booths caused problematic congestion, and (2) they too should have been permitted to distribute literature from outside their booths, thereby creating more problematic congestion. The Executive Director’s averment is at best ambiguous, and the Board offered no other evidence to show a real need to prohibit literature distribution on account of congestion.

The regulation is also underinclusive. Where a regulation restricts a medium of speech in the name of a particular interest but leaves unfettered other modes of expression that implicate the same interest, the regulation’s underinclusiveness may “diminish the credibility of the government’s rationale for restricting speech in the first place.”

Johnson produced evidence that the Board permitted at least one street performer on the pathways in Loring Park during the 2011 Festival. The district court accepted that performers are permitted in the park during the Festival, but concluded nonetheless that the literature distribution regulation is “not so underinclusive as to be unconstitutional,” because performers are less likely to cause congestion than literature distributors. We think it obvious, however, that a street performer’s very purpose is to draw a crowd. Buskers like mimes, musicians, and living statues aim to attract an audience, and passersby must stop to listen or observe. With literature distribution, by contrast, a recipient “need not ponder the contents of a leaflet or pamphlet in order mechanically to take it out of someone’s hand.”

At oral argument before this court, the Board asserted that if performers created a crowding problem during the Festival, then Board officials would “move them on” to alleviate the congestion. But if this approach suffices to cure congestion created by entertainers who seek to attract crowds, then we fail to see why a similar exhortation would not be sufficient to alleviate any crowding caused by a stationary distributor of literature. That the Board is satisfied with informal case-by-case action with respect to performers but insists on a blanket ban on distribution of literature outside booths diminishes the credibility of its asserted rationale.

Oh, wait. I misread that. It wasn’t an atheist group handing out literature at a Christian festival, it was a Christian group handing out Bibles at a gay pride event. Does that change your opinion of whether this ruling is correct? It shouldn’t. One of the important demands of the First Amendment is that any restrictions on free speech must be content-neutral. And while we may not like Christians handing out Bibles at a gay pride event, constitutionally it is exactly the same thing as atheists handing out literature at a Christian event.

9 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    observer

    Clever ruse! And right, as usual. I respect your consistency.

  2. 2
    Modusoperandi

    “And while we may not like Christians handing out Bibles at a gay pride event, constitutionally it is exactly the same thing as atheists handing out literature at a Christian event.”

    Hardly. Atheists at Christian events don’t board and commandeer the floats, turn down the dance music, and confiscate all the glitter!

  3. 3
    Gvlgeologist, FCD

    Interesting. As I read this, I was thinking to myself that this was kind of a dickish thing to do, but that Christians do this kind of thing all the time, so why not atheists at religious events? I’m glad I was right on both counts.

    And having said that, why NOT atheists doing this at religious events?

  4. 4
    marcus

    Well freeze my peaches!

  5. 5
    ck

    While they should be legally equivalent, there is certainly no reason to consider them morally equivalent.

  6. 6
    Childermass

    They are more than welcome to give me a free Bible. It not like I already have a few, but it does represent funds that they can’t use for more nefarious ends.

    I mean really, the only people who don’t own a Bible in America are probably those who would not read a book anyways with very few exceptions most of which are related to only owning what one can carry.

  7. 7
    mars

    I was actually thinking about this sort of thing as I got ready for work this morning. A friend had made a dumb joke about atheist proselyting and I was thinking about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have come to my door, the tracts left on my car, the preachers in the shopping district, and the Billy Graham handouts at the grocery store. I’m not even including the bibles and Christian newsletters in doctors’ offices, hotels, etc. All of these have been in the last year, but I haven’t had a single comparable atheist experience in my life. So I read your thought experiment and thought “huh, I guess it happens somewhere.” Only, it didn’t.

  8. 8
    freehand

    I did stumble briefly when I read The Board relies on the Executive Director’s assertions that “there were nine ambulance calls on one day of the 2011 Pride Festival,” and that paths must be clear to allow for “the staging and delivery of supplies to food and beverage or other vendors.”

    …and then thought it was funny that there would be a Christian Pride event, taking their name from the gays. Heh. But yeah, I’m cool with them handing out pamphlets. I got into the habit a long time ago that whenever I see a news story or hear gossip about misbehavior or unfair treatment or other social imbalances to reverse certain key elements and rerun the events in my head.
    Imagine if Zimmerman and Martin were black & white Hispanic respectively.
    Or if men earned 77% of what women did for the same job.
    Etc.

  9. 9
    beergoggles

    Yeah I have no problem with this. As I was reading the article I was thinking to myself “Well that’s a first with atheist organizations being proactive.” So imagine my disappointment that it wasn’t actually the case.

    We need more atheist and gay organizations proselytizing during xtian festivals dammit!

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site