07-05-2015, 03:57 AM
whether the pulpit is inside a church or on somebody's truck, is something completely different
Exactly this: congregants make a conscious choice to enter the church which contains that pulpit; the public street includes many "innocent bystanders" who had no interest in the message being preached. Both may be "open to the public", but there is a huge difference.
they (being the people with children) have a right to use the park but not a "homeless person"?
Similar to above: public park, public property, public rules. There's always making a private park with its own bylaws -- yes this "shouldn't be necessary", but then I shouldn't have to pay for my road three times, either.
explicit hardcore pornographic images on billboards across the street from schools?
Anyone remember when the "porn shop" across from Keaau School simply "had to be shut down" in order to "protect the children", despite the shop owner blacking out the storefront and closing shop for an hour when school let out? No public display, just the existence of pornographic materials. How ironic it was when that shop was forced to move ... and their new location was across from this very same Lincoln Park, and that was somehow okay.
Now, which one of these is "free speech"? Would a "hate shop" be tolerated as long as it paid its share of rent and taxes? (Not defending the message, here.)
As far as a practical suggestion: I would be very surprised if the Hate Van could pass a stringent application of the Code as it applies to signs... because that's what they are... and signs are regulated... especially on public streets...
Exactly this: congregants make a conscious choice to enter the church which contains that pulpit; the public street includes many "innocent bystanders" who had no interest in the message being preached. Both may be "open to the public", but there is a huge difference.
they (being the people with children) have a right to use the park but not a "homeless person"?
Similar to above: public park, public property, public rules. There's always making a private park with its own bylaws -- yes this "shouldn't be necessary", but then I shouldn't have to pay for my road three times, either.
explicit hardcore pornographic images on billboards across the street from schools?
Anyone remember when the "porn shop" across from Keaau School simply "had to be shut down" in order to "protect the children", despite the shop owner blacking out the storefront and closing shop for an hour when school let out? No public display, just the existence of pornographic materials. How ironic it was when that shop was forced to move ... and their new location was across from this very same Lincoln Park, and that was somehow okay.
Now, which one of these is "free speech"? Would a "hate shop" be tolerated as long as it paid its share of rent and taxes? (Not defending the message, here.)
As far as a practical suggestion: I would be very surprised if the Hate Van could pass a stringent application of the Code as it applies to signs... because that's what they are... and signs are regulated... especially on public streets...