ACLU Calls for Plaza Judgment

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 1/13/2003 | HEATHER MAY

[Utah Girl]

What was supposed to be a routine court order in the Main Street Plaza case has turned into anything but.

After the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October that speech and behavior restrictions on the plaza are unconstitutional because of the city's easement, the Denver-based court ordered U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to enter a judgment essentially telling the city to apply the decision.

Stewart has not yet issued the judgment and the city and LDS Church are trying to delay it. To the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, that means the city is trying to avoid its duties to ensure free expression.

The ACLU wants an acknowledgment that the restrictions were illegal and an injunction against future enforcement of those rules. A judgment also will allow the ACLU to recoup attorney's fees from the city.

In a series of court filings last week, first the church, then the city, said a judgment would be premature because the city's plan to vacate the easement would make the 10th Circuit ruling moot. Before there is a judgment, the city wants to find a "workable solution" -- either giving up the easement through a proposed land swap, implementing "time, place, and manner" rules or something else -- Steven Allred, a city attorney, said Friday. "The judgment ought to be conclusive."

It may take until June for the city to decide on a solution, and ACLU advising attorney Stephen Clark does not want to wait. He noted that a judgment against speech and behavior restrictions can be changed later. "You don't ignore the mandate of the 10th Circuit while the city and church connive to undermine the judgment."

The city also argues the church "has voluntarily allowed First Amendment activity to occur on the Main Street Plaza."

But Clark said it is the city's responsibility, not the church's, to allow First Amendment activities to continue. While people have passed out leaflets, preached and received city permits for protests on the plaza since the 10th Circuit ruling, a judgment is necessary to clear up what behavior is allowed or forbidden on the plaza, Clark said.

When plazagoers don't know what is allowed, that can have a "chilling effect on people to exercise their First Amendment rights."

The LDS Church said Stewart would need to shed light on whether the church would need a permit to stage activities on its plaza and if the church can ban smoking and bicycling there -- something it already is trying to do.

A judgment also may prompt the city to enforce existing laws on the plaza, including ones against disturbing the peace that might tone down loud street preachers, Clark said. "But right now the church doesn't want that because it wants to play the victim. The city seems happy to go along with that."

Allred denies that is the city's intent in asking for the delay.

[Utah Girl]

May I just say how intensely I dislike the ACLU? The compromise on the table is probably the best one so far, and yet the ACLU now wants to hurry up the judgement. This is after they moaned and groaned that the LDS church and SLC officials hurried up the original agreement, and didn't take the time to do it right.

And Dani Eyer, the head of the Utah ACLU is a real piece of work. She accused the LDS church last week of paying those obnoxious preachers to preach on the Plaza and generate sympathy for the LDS church.

[hchutch]

Sheesh...

[tracer]

".......will surely be smitten at last."

[Utah Girl]

One can only hope. :)

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Dionysius]

ACLU = Altruists Committed (to making) Life Unbearable

[RobRoy]

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I feel like I just read a story with the first few paragraphs missing.

What easement? What was being done? Who was doing it? What does the church have to do with any of it? Who owns this plaza? Why is the ACLU even involved? Who are they representing?

This article looks like it is part X of an X part series.

[Utah Girl]

Not LDS preachers, some preachers from California and Oklahoma who preach to save our souls. With taunts, name-calling, and megaphones.

Short story is that the Main Street Plaza was a street in SLC, on the east side is Administration block (the Church office building is there, as is the Administration building, etc.) On the west side is Temple Square. For 40 years, the LDS church and the city wanted to connect the two blocks by closing down one block of Main Street. They could never agree or get it right for both sides. In 1998 Salt Lake City approached the leaders of the LDS church with a plan for the church to buy the property for 8.1 million dollars. The church agreed to the deal, with some restrictions because it would be open to the public 24/7. The restrictions were no smoking, no drinking, no skateboarding, no leafletting or proselytizing, etc. The ACLU immediately sued, saying because of the public easement, the public's 1st Amendments rights were being infringed upon. The local judge dismissed the suit, the 10th District court struck down the restrictions. The city and the LDS church are trying to work out a compromise that is constitutional, but the ACLU keeps gumming up the works. If you want more detail, do a search on Main Street Plaza, I've posted the articles as events have happened.

[RobRoy]

>>Not LDS preachers, some preachers from California and Oklahoma who preach to save our souls. With taunts, name-calling, and megaphones.<<

That makes it quite a bit clearer. I was under that impression until I read a later line in the article that seemed to imply that the preachers were LDS.

I have a hard time with this one. On the one hand, I believe that an easement is for a specific purpose, like ingress and egress to otherwise locked property. Even in the case of a public easement. Therefore, other uses could be constitutionally limited by the property owner.

However, if the property is open 24/7 to the public for "general purpose use," then this would, in fact be an insidious end run around the first amendment. That is, cities could sell off blocks of public property to large comanies with the stipulation that the property be open to the public for access, gatherings, maybe even roads. The land owner could otherwise restrict use (no bikes, no unaproved gatherings, etc.). Next thing you know, all of downtown is "private property with public easements." Then, if the ACLU loses this case and it sets precedent, it means suddenly the downtown "public" gathering places are no longer protected by the first amendment. Free public speech would be delegated to "outside the gates of the city," effectively muffling it.

That, I would have a problem with.

[Utah Girl]

Well, me too. But this is one block, protestors can protest on the sidewalks around Temple Square (and they do.) With our rights come responbilities, and one is to be respectful of others' beliefs. Yelling 'whoremonger' at LDS men and 'whore/harlot' at LDS women will not win those few evangelical preachers any converts. My brother did a little research, there were a grand total of three protests on the sidewalks where the Plaza now is. Not an historical place for protests. Anyway, it has been a very divisive issue in SLC (conservative vs liberal, Mormon vs non-Mormon.) It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the end.

[RobRoy]

>>Yelling 'whoremonger' at LDS men and 'whore/harlot' at LDS women will not win those few evangelical preachers any converts.<<

In short, that kind of thing amazes me. The things human beings do in the name of Christ in an immature (to say the least) attempt at bolstering their own agenda never cease to amaze me.

The scary thing is, I can't shake the creepy feeling that to some degree or another, and in our own way, we ALL do it...