Religious Group May Solicit, Supreme Court Rules

June 17th, 2002 | Posted in: , JWs vs. the World | Keywords: , , | 9 Comments



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an ordinance requiring Jehovah’s Witnesses or other door-to-door advocates for religious or political causes to get a permit violates free-speech rights.

The high court ruled for a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, a nonprofit publisher of church literature, in striking down the law regulating uninvited peddling and solicitation.

The justices, by a 8-1 vote, ruled the ordinance in the tiny village of Stratton, Ohio, infringed on the rights of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a faith whose members go from house to house speaking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The decision added to a number of Supreme Court rulings in the 1930s and 1940s that the Jehovah’s Witnesses won on First Amendment issues.

Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court majority that the law, as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech and the distribution of handbills violated First Amendment free-speech protections.

The law at issue covered “canvassers, solicitors, peddlers (or) hawkers” who go to private homes for the purpose of “advertising, promoting, selling and/or explaining any product, service, organization or cause.”

Individuals first must register with the city, providing their name and address, their cause, why they were canvassing, which homes they intended to go to and how long they planned to solicit.

A permit would be provided unless the mayor determined the applicant failed to complete the form, provided fraudulent information, made false statements or misrepresentations while canvassing, violated any laws or engaged in trespassing.

The permits must be displayed upon demand by any resident.

Individuals were allowed to go door-to-door from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., so long as the owner of a residence had not filed a “No Solicitation Form” with the city and had not posted a “No Solicitation Sign” on the property.

While the “No Solicitation Form” listed several organizations by name, the only religious group cited was the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Stevens said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in upholding the law. He said the high court for more than 50 years has, on First Amendment grounds, invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

He said the ordinances applied to a significant number of noncommercial canvassers promoting a wide variety of causes.

Stevens rejected the village’s argument that the ordinance was valid because it protects the privacy of residents and prevents fraud or other types of crime.

He said it seemed unlikely the lack of permit would stop criminals from knocking on doors and there was no evidence of a special crime problem related to such solicitation.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the lone dissenter. He said the ruling deprived residents of the degree of “accountability and safety” the permit requirement provided.




Comment by DrinyDiluer (Comment ID: 298746)

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:



Posted on January 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm

 

Comment by Ted (Comment ID: 12125)

Here is a slap to the first admendment. the city of Lakewood in Ohio says i can pass out my flyers but the homeowner can’t use the information on it. they tell me they are not in violation of my rights cause they will let me pass out the flyer, but not paint a address for the homeowner that wants the service.

how retarded can a city be before someone stops them?
This city required me to pay them taxes for painting curbs in other cities but wont let me work in their city.

Tell me do they really have a right to collect taxes for something they will not let me do in their city?

i have as much right to go door to door as any relgous group , or politition. I am an American that has the same right to earn a living any legal way i can as you do.



Posted on April 18, 2006 at 5:16 pm


Comment by Ber (Comment ID: 12143)

Yes you should be able to have the right to go from door to door. On the other hand I own a piece of land and a house which I have paid for and pay taxes on it and I though I had the right not to be annoyed by you comming to my door.

Apparently you right contradicts mine, so who has the rigth to what????



Posted on April 19, 2006 at 3:22 am

 
 

Comment by Sam (Comment ID: 1471)

Well i have been studying this case in one of my classes adn i think that even though the jehovahs wit. should get over it and just try for a permitt which they never did so they were never denid it, but i also believe that the law at hand was way to broad and that because of that it is unconstitutional. Under this law anyone, including tricker treaters would need to get permits, or even just to go next door to ask for some sugar. Under this law all of that is not allowed unless you have a permit. I believe this could have been a realy good law but it was not CLOSE to as detailed as it should have been, so i think the supreme court made the correct decision,



Posted on January 12, 2006 at 1:40 am

 

Comment by Ber (Comment ID: 1358)

Do you call going from door to door-annoying people “earning a living”?

What about me, don’t I have the right not be have you coming to my property annoying me?

Sure you have the right of free speech. Don’t I also have the right of privacy on my own property?

You were not very clear in you post, but I gather only jw’s have rights, right?



Posted on January 3, 2006 at 9:25 pm


Comment by stan (Comment ID: 225117)

Hey i got an idea you are soo bothered by people coming to your door…go to the police department get a no soliciting sign and shut the hell up



Posted on June 14, 2007 at 9:26 pm

 

Comment by D (Comment ID: 269065)

The Supreme Court has already ruled that your walkway that leads to your door is NOT private property but public property.

See United States Vs. Toben and learn something!



Posted on September 22, 2007 at 12:00 am

 
 

Comment by rel (Comment ID: 1357)

“earning a honest lving by placing illegal laws”???????????????????????????????

“Thanks to the watchtower group i now go ito cities and tell them they are violating my rights by not allowing me to go door to door until i get a permit that says i can exercise my right of free speech”???????????????????????????????

“make cities stop these illegal laws”???????????????????????????????

“Best of luck out there in your door to door living”???????????????????????????????



Posted on January 3, 2006 at 8:18 pm

 

Comment by Ted (Comment ID: 1355)

i love it when i find out a city has been proved in the wrong. cities all over the united states try to stop people from earning a honest lving by placing illegal laws on the book that stand until someone fights them.

Thanks to the watchtower group i now go ito cities and tell them they are violating my rights by not allowing me to go door to door until i get a permit that says i can exercise my right of free speech. now if we can get the U.S. gov to stand behind this ruling, and make cities stop these illegal laws we might be able to earn our living without having arrest warrant put out for trying to earn a living legally.

Best of luck out there in your door to door living.
Ted CurbPainting.com



Posted on January 3, 2006 at 5:54 pm

 

Leave a comment

Don't forget to fill in the following Anti-Spam-Word* before you press the submit-button:

*This action is intended to prove that you are a human being and not some kind of robot spamming this site with advertisements.

Click here for a list of Recent Comments on other Articles