ktallamigo wrote:Professor Petersen [sic]:
Freedom of speech and the right to peacably assemble (peaceful protest), and our other freedoms guaranteed by the first Amendment are what make America great. These "free speech zones" are in effect denying free speech and only permitting it in certain, designated areas.
Having a "free speech zone" -- note the portion of the phrase
free speech zone that contains the words
free speech -- doesn't deny free speech. It does, of course,
regulate that speech. But it doesn't regulate the
content of that speech, which is vital, and, in any case, free speech in the United States has never been wholly unregulated: Shouting fire in a crowded theater just for the fun of it isn't protected free speech, for example. Neither are slanderous and libelous statements. And, while you may think somebody an idiot, you don't have an inalienable right to say so on that person's front lawn or in his bedroom.
Zones for demonstrators are routinely created in connection with public events like political conventions. While the right of free speech is vital, it has never been understood to be entirely unlimited. The Draper policy seems to me simply a good-faith effort on the part of local government officials to balance First Amendment rights against the reasonable expectations of a neighborhood. If you can show otherwise, please do so and I'll join you in opposing the proposed "free speech zones."
ktallamigo wrote:These areas are usually in places where the people who need to get the message won't see or hear the protest. Bush & Co. have been notorious for "free speech" zones over the last eight years.
That may or may not be true.
But let's assume that it is. Do you have any actual evidence that the same thing is happening here?
ktallamigo wrote:If the government was infringing upon our first amendment rights to freedom of religion, and God-fearing people rose up to protest -- would it be fair to limit us to free speech zones far away from government buildings or places where the media would be apt to report on such a protest?
If the salient motive were to prevent media coverage or public observation, no, it would not.
Is such a thing happening in this case? Do you have any relevant evidence to suggest that it is? Do you know where the proposed "free speech zones" are proposed to be?
ktallamigo wrote:As for the Draper temple - there is Logan, Ogden, Bountiful, Salt lake, Jordan River, Timponogos, Provo, Manti - that's a lot of temples and some of them are really big. Surely they can't all be that busy that they need to build more.
I would imagine that such questions were considered as part of the decision to build the temple in Draper.
ktallamigo wrote:Why do I care? I'm a Mormon.
Believing, tithe-paying Mormon are generally delighted at the announcement of new temples. I am.