Pro-lifers sue Florida city for banning home protests
True to their word, pro-life activists in Winter Park, Florida, have sued the city government for passing an ordinance banning home protests.
City commissioners (minus the mayor, who voted to protect free speech) enacted the ban after pro-lifers picketed the home of Jenna Tosh, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, on August 18.
The ban prohibits protests within 50 feet of any home.
Coincidentally, Jenna is sister-in-law to Comedy Central’s Daniel Tosh.
Plaintiffs Winnifred Bell, Allura Lightfoot, and Deanna Waller filed a motion for a temporary restraining order as the merits of their case are debated in court, but that motion was denied.
Recall even the liberal Orlando Sentinel came out against this ordinance as “abridging… free-speech rights.”
Mayor Kenneth Bradley stated on the record he thought the ordinance would be found unconstitutional, to which City Council Commissioner Tom McMacken (pictured left) dimly responded, “I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, but … if it was constitutional or unconstitutional, I would still do it.”
City Attorney Larry Brown explained the city’s side to a reporter from Winter Park Voice, noting plaintiffs had filed for recovery of attorney fees and damages…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh_Dwnp_2vU[/youtube]
The city is hinging its defense on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Frisby v. Schultz decision, which upheld a Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance banning home protests. The current lawsuit maintains:
Although the Code claims to be in conformance with Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 7 474 (1988), it misinterprets the essential holdings of the case. The Frisby Court held an Code “forbid[ding] all picketing in residential neighborhoods [would violate] the overbreadth doctrine [and] would render it unconstitutional on its face.”(White, J., concurring).
Second, the City’s Code defines a “picket” as “any assembly of one or more persons ….” (emphasis supplied). In Burk v. Augusta-Richmond County, 365 F. 3d 1247, 1255 n.13 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit cited with approval the small group exceptions of many other circuits when it noted a law requiring permits for groups of only five people is not narrowly tailored.
Stay tuned.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I used to live close to Winter Park.
Do the people who agree that this law is wrong also have a problem with a “buffer zone” at funerals, like to prevent WBC from protesting too close?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that time, manner and place restrictions on free speech are legal.
They still have their free speech even if they are 50 feet away from the home.
Laura, is there a place where they can protest 50′ away, or is 50′ in every direction under the free speech prohibition?
Mary Ann, I don’t know specifically about this situation. But if there is a place 100 yards away, and they can exercise their free speech about the Planned Parenthood CEO, then their constitutional free speech rights are not prohibited.
I do not recall reading the 50 foot wording in the constitution.
Jerry, take that up with the Supreme Court. There a lot of other things not contained in the Constitution, e.g., “yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, etc.” If you think free speech is absolute, you are wrong.
Forbidding protesting at 4 a.m. in a neighborhood isn’t in the Constitution.
Here is a pretty good source for “time, manner and place restrictions”:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions
As long as an ordinance doesn’t single out prolife protesters and includes everyone, it will pass constitutional muster.
Jerry saysOctober 31, 2012 at 12:13 am “I do not recall reading the 50 foot wording in the constitution.”
Jerry,
It’s hiding in the shadows in close proximity to the right to a dead baby. You remember, in the penumbra of the shadow…
Ken:
That’s right….NOW I remember!
The ordinance does not ban all free speech. It only bans speech that is persuasive or effective. For example, people are still allowed to send an email expressing their views, because no one reads unwelcome email. Likewise they could demonstrate in a park far away from everyone so that no one could see or hear them. Or they could stay at home and yell into a pillow where nobody would be aware they were protesting. This is the City’s convoluted logic in saying that they have not outlawed the First Amendment. For those of you who think it is just fine for the government to ban the pro-life peaceful people from expressing their views, remember that they did the same thing in Nazi Germany and the people there thought it was just wonderful too.