Loading...
Calvery Baptist Church peddlers letterGIBBS LAW FIRM, P. A. 5668 sEMINOLE BOULEVARD, SUIT[ TWO TELQPHONE: (727!399-8300 SEMINOLE. ILORIOA 33772 FAC3IMIL[: 17271398-3807 SCppN l -D ~l.,c ~_~ August 15, 2005 Pastor James Nolan ~alyazy Baptist Church' P.O. Box 401 9006 320th St. S. ~ ~ ~~~ Roy, WA 98580 i~/// ~flS,On ~~ ~ ~ Via email: cbcroyCPywave.com ~ /~ ~f/~l /~ ~P i~~9~.•~~~ ~~ ~~c~ r~~ ~~ mil; ~~~ /1a~ ~ Dear Pastor Nolan: ~/ G- ~~~~ GJ~~' V 00 0~~ ~,~/~-- Thank you for your call to the Christian Law Association and our law firm regarding your right to engage in soul-winning activities door-to-door on public streets without obtaining a permit. You indicated that a local official was telling you that you needed to obtain a permit or register in some way before going door-to-door. It is understandable that your local officials may be unclear about this matter since the United States Supreme Court has only recently made another definitive ruling on this question. I have also reviewed the local ordinance you forwarded to me (Q.12.090-120). In section 9.12.120, the ordinance indicates that no person may "cut, mar, injure, deface, spoil, break, or destroy any fence, sidewalk, house, building, tree, plant, or other property, public or private .. by any means, including the attachment of any handbills . . ." It is clear to me that the intent of this section of the ordinance is not to ban freedom of speech, which has always included the distribution of handbills door-to-door, but to make certain that in engaging in such a distribution activity, the distributor does not destroy or injure property. You indicated that your church is very careful when distributing handbills door-to-door to use special cazdboaid door hangers that do not in any way deface or destroy property. So long as your distributors use such door hangers and do not destroy other property while they are approaching the door to engage in this free speech activity, you should not be in violation of this local ordinance. Certainly, the city does have the right to make sure that tract distributors do not damage or deface property while engaging in this protected free speech activity. www~ Pastor Nolan GIBBS LAW FIRM, P. A. Page 2 of 3 ~~~da~~~~~~-emu August 15, 2005 For your city to interpret this ordinance in any way that would not permit traditional freedom of speech through the door-to-door distribution of free handbills would be an unconstitutional violation of your First Amendment Free Speech rights. Cities are permitted to require permits for solicitors, those who are selling things or requesting money, but so long as your activities only involve the distribution of free pamphlets for soul winning, you are engaging in a centuries old tradition in America that is still protected by our United States Supreme Court. In fact, the most recent Supreme Court case protecting such fret speech rights was decided as recently as 2002 in a case very similar to the situation you are facing. The Supreme Court continued to recognize in a 2002 case the rights of soul- winners (by tract distribution or visitation) to share their faith door-to-door. The Court held that a city ordinance requiring canvassers, including soul-winners, to obtain a permit prior to going door-to-door had overstepped its bounds. In Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al. v. Village of Stratton, et al., 536 U.S. 150 (2002), the Supreme Court held, 8 to 1, that the ordinance was too great a burden on the First Amendment rights of canvassers. Among the reasons noted in its decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the argument that God has commanded His people to preach the gospel, and that the authority to preach comes from Scripture. The Court even referred to Acts 20:20, Mark 16:15, and Matthew 28:19 in its written opinion. Further, the Supreme Court referred back to its 1943 decision in Murdock v. Pennsylva-iia, where it found that religious tracts are valued speech in the U.S., and the distribution of freed tracts door-to-door is a form of religious activity which "occupies the same high estate under the first amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits." The city had argued that the permit ordinance for door-to-door visitation and tract distribution had been enacted in order to protect residents from fraud and crime, and to protect the residents' privacy. However, the Supreme Court said the city should have limited its ordinance to requiring registration and permits only for those organizations that sell things, solicit funds, or ask for money from residents. The Watchtower Society argued that they were not solicitors because they did not ask for money, but rather distributed free literature which residents were free to decline or discard. The Court agreed. In addition, the tract distributors honored "No Solicitation" signs posted by individual residents. The Supreme Court said the city's interest in protecting its residents was not greater than the soul-winners (tract distributors) right to take their message door- to-door. The Supreme Court recognized this right as a constitutional guarantee and chose to continue to protect it from local permit requirements. Therefore, your church may not be required to obtain a permit in order to evangelize and distribute tracts door-to-door. A permit ordinance that controlled such an activity for the distribution of free information would be unconstitutional and, GIBBS LAW FIRM, P. A. Pastor Nolan Page 3 of 3 ~~~~~~~a~~~-~ August 15, 2005 furthermore, it does not appear to me from reading the ordinance you supplied that this is what the clear text of that ordinance means to say. Just as in the Watchtower case, if individual residents do not want to be disturbed in their homes or receive material at their door, they must post "No Solicitation. No Distribution" signs on their individual doors. This would cover all types of material, commercial as well as free. Soul-winners should honor "No Solicitation" signs since most homeowners do not realize that, legally, solicitation and the free distribution of material are not equivalent activities. The Coun said that a city may also not require persons who wants to distribute free material door-to-door to register or provide photographs before engaging in such tract distribution activities. That would just be a permit system in disguise and would meet the same constitutional fate as a permit requirement. Please feel free to share a copy of this letter and legal information with your city officials. They may be uninformed about how basic First Amendment free speech rights as articulated in this new Supreme Court decision affect the constitutional implementation of their local ordinance. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with either you or the city attorney, should that become necessary. Sincerely, Gibbs Law Firm, P.A. Barbara J. Weller Arinu~reri in Fioridn