[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
National News See other National News Articles Title: Legal War Looming Over Town’s Decision to Attack Christian Meetings Guest by post by Bob Unruh Officials order newspaper to remove ad promoting park meeting in act that is ‘utterly unthinkable.’ A new legal war is looming over a series of attacks by officials in a Massachusetts town on a pastor who wanted to arrange a time and location for some of his church’s members to meet for a Bible study. Many of the details, including the town, the names of the officials and the pastor, are not being released immediately because the American Center for Law and Justice explains it has written a demand letter in the hope that the dispute can be resolved short of formal court action. But the ACLJ charged that some of the town’s actions were “utterly unthinkable.” Including officials’ demand that a local newspaper remove an ad promoting a meeting time and place in a park for the study. The ACLJ explained the local government not only “blocked a church from using a public library’s community meeting room” but also ordered the newspaper to drop a church ad promoting a Bible study. “Our client is a pastor. He requested the use of the community meeting room of his town’s library to conduct Bible studies for his church and to hold gatherings for grief support. The Massachusetts town policy for the meeting room makes clear that the meeting room is open for the public for informational, educational, cultural, and civic benefit. The meeting room rules also allow people to reserve the room for regular use, for example, a monthly reservation,” the ACLJ documented. At first, the library director agreed to a pastor’s request for biweekly meetings, but then abruptly reversed course in an email, insisting that “legal counsel” said the rooms were NOT available for “recurring” events. “Her statement directly contradicted library policy. Our client sent follow-up letters trying to reserve the room and to figure out whether the library would let him use it at all. But he received no response. At this time, he has still not received any confirmation of any ability to use the space, whether for occasional use or for recurring events,” the legal team explained. So the pastor wanted to meet with five or six others for a Bible study in an open area of a local public park, a meeting that does not require a fee for a formal “social function” in the park. “Our client sent an informational ad to the local newspaper, which agreed to publish the ad about his Bible study in the grass. His ad made clear that this Bible study would not be inside a building like a park gazebo that required a reservation; rather, it asked people to bring chairs and indicated that the regular Bible study would only occur if the weather permitted.” Town officials then ordered the newspaper to pull the ad. “Both these acts are egregious constitutional violations, flying in the face of decades-old Supreme Court precedents. The library violated the First Amendment by prohibiting our client from regularly using the library meeting room, even though the library policy expressly allows people to do so. The library told him that the rules only allowed occasional use of the library meeting room, despite the fact that the meeting room application itself allowed him to select that the use was not a one-time use. And then, further evidencing animus, the library stopped even responding to our client’s requests to reserve a room, whether occasional or not,” the ACLJ said. Regarding the park meeting, “The Supreme Court has emphasized that ‘streets and parks, which have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. . . . In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity,'” the legal team said. “Requiring a permit before a small group gathers on the grass of a public park is antithetical to the First Amendment. And ordering a newspaper to remove an ad for a private event is utterly unthinkable.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||