What about restrictions on protest, counseling, and education outside courthouses?

[Bob Sheridan]

Timothy Zick wrote:

> These sorts of restrictions represent the pernicious effects of cases 
> like Heffron , ISKCON v. Lee , Ward , and Hill . They also demonstrate 
> how effective “place” can be as a mechanism for controlling speakers 
> and speech. If a court were to look behind the language to the 
> context, and assuming the account you post is accurate, there is 
> certainly evidence of content discrimination in the enactment. If it 
> follows Hill , the restriction seems to apply to /all/ protest, etc. . 
> . and thus to be content-neutral.
>
> Even absent a finding of content discriminatino, I think these 
> provisions are vulnerable. At least, it is a stretch to fit them 
> within the mentioned cases. I don’t see any basis for a concern, such 
> as was evident in cases like Hill and Madsen , that the targeted 
> activity (which, by the way, has constitutional roots dating to cases 
> like Schneider and Martin ) “interferes” with pedestrian access. The 
> state court in Madsen was convinced that permitting protesters near 
> the clinic would not preserve patron access. This was, in part, a 
> function of the specific geography involved near the clinic property. 
> It was also, again, a matter of historical reality. The fair in 
> Heffron had an average daily attendance of over 100,000, and the Court 
> held that confining distributors and solicitors to booths (first-come, 
> first-served) was a neutral and tailored manner of proceeding there. 
> Also, part of the rationale in Lee related to the function of the 
> airport as a place. Airports, the Court said, are designed to 
> facilitate uninterrupted walking to and from destinations /within/. So 
> leafletters could be confined to the sidewalk speech zone outside. 
> Unless there is some real concern that the 
> pedestrians/patrons/litigants will actually be impeded by the 
> prohibited activity, I would find an expressive /ban/ of this sort 
> within 15 feet excessive.
>
> Further, I would think that the argument for applying the Hill 
> “bubble” tactic is exceptionally weak here, where there are no 
> psychologically vulnerable “captive” or unwilling recipients. The 
> 100-foot zone also seems far from tailored, if the goal is to ensure 
> ingress and egress rather than to protect either listeners and/or 
> court personnel from offensive speech.
>
> It is worth noting that the /place/ at issue, a courthouse, is 
> symbolic in two respects. This is, after all, where people go to have 
> rights vindicated. And for the speaker, the very evil he “protests” 
> happens to reside within.
>
> Tim Zick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:50 PM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: What about restrictions on protest, counseling,and education 
> outside courthouses?
>
> On Nov. 15, the L.A. County Superior Court promulgated various
>
> restrictions on speech in and around courthouses. Consider these
>
> excerpts:
>
> "'Prohibited Activity' shall mean demonstrating, picketing,
>
> distributing literature or other materials to the general public,
>
> soliciting sales or donations, or engaging in oral protest, education or
>
> counseling.
>
> "No person (other than authorized court personnel or peace
>
> officers in the performance of their official duties) shall engage in
>
> any Prohibited Activity within 15 feet from either side of, or 15 feet
>
> in front of, a doorway to any building, or part of a building,
>
> containing a courtroom.
>
> "No person (other than authorized court personnel or peace
>
> officers in the performance of their official duties) shall, within 100
>
> feet of any doorway to any courthouse, or the portion of any other
>
> building containing a courtroom, knowingly approach another person,
>
> within eight feet of such person, unless such other person consents, for
>
> the purpose or passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to,
>
> or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling with such other
>
> person."
>
> According to
>
> http://community.netscape.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tid=187862&w
>
> ebtag=ws-automobile,
>
> [The 100-foot provision] comes in response to efforts by the editor of
>
> the highwayrobbery.net website to help individuals exercise their full
>
> legal rights with respect to red light camera tickets. The court's war
>
> on education and counseling began in August 2004, when Judge John Meigs
>
> refused a request to allow distribution of legal challenge material
>
> within the Inglewood courthouse. "If you wish to distribute literature,
>
> it must be distributed outside the courthouse in a place that does not
>
> interfere with individuals entering or exiting the courthouse," Meigs
>
> wrote. According to court documents, the general order allowed such
>
> distributions within 10 feet of the entrance. "I go out to the
>
> courthouses, every week, as part of my effort to help red light camera
>
> defendants get a fair shake," the editor explained. "I go there not just
>
> to observe the trials, but also to provide information to defendants I
>
> find there, to help them deal with their tickets." Each red light ticket
>
> runs $341. "Many of the defendants in that part of town don't have any
>
> money," he told TheNewspaper. For the Inglewood courthouse, the stakes
>
> are high. It handles about $800,000 in red light camera fine revenue
>
> every month. In September 2004, a judge ordered the arrest of the editor
>
> at the Inglewood courthouse after the man had provided "Peremptory
>
> Challenge" forms to defendants. These forms are used to disqualify a
>
> biased judge and request transfer of a case to a new judge. A timely
>
> challenge must be granted, but some judges take the legal maneuver
>
> personally. The editor was formally charged with "distributing
>
> literature" less than ten feet from the building entrance. Refusing to
>
> give up his right to help others, he returned to the courthouse the next
>
> day and was nearly arrested a second time for holding a sign offering
>
> free help -- this time 45 feet from the entrance (see photo). The advice
>
> was politely offered, and anyone who asked for the information received
>
> a packet specifically tailored to various stages of fighting a ticket.
>
> On November 15, 2005 the court fired back with the order extending the
>
> ban on free speech or assembly to 100 feet. "No person... shall, within
>
> 100 feet of any doorway to any courthouse... knowingly approach another
>
> person, within eight feet of such person, unless such other person
>
> consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to,
>
> displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or
>
> counseling with such other person," the order states. Violation of the
>
> edict carries a $1500 fine and potential "prosecution for criminal
>
> violations." . . .
>
> Eugene
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
And I suppose that a lawyer making a really effective argument to judge 
or jury stands to be arrested upon leaving, if not sooner...

rs
sfls