Westcoastskinfan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Posted: June 15, 2008 8:53 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily </FONT> A man arrested for preaching on a public sidewalk too close to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia has been declared guilty of violating federal law. He was fined over $400, put on probation and told not to go in Independence National Historical Park – or on its surrounding sidewalks – for a year. On Oct. 7, Michael A. Marcavage, director of the evangelistic organization Repent America, stood on the sidewalk outside the Liberty Bell Center, on the western edge of Independence Historical Park, preaching a message against abortion and declaring "we need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" to a crowd waiting to enter the park. "This is where we have been on a number of other occasions," Marcavage told WND. "This time we were ministering to people waiting in line to see the Liberty Bell, speaking on the message written on the Bell, which reads, 'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land.'" Marcavage then was confronted by a National Park Service ranger, who demanded he move to a "free speech zone" some distance from the entrance, where he could continue preaching under the permission of a "verbal permit." Marcavage refused to move and refused to accept a verbal permit, claiming the First Amendment protected his right to speak in public. He then was arrested, taken away and charged with violating the terms of the permit that he had refused to accept. On Friday, in the case of United States of America vs. Michael A Marcavage, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport found the preacher guilty of violating the terms of a verbal permit and "interfering with agency functions." After the arrest, Marcavage posted his thoughts on a free speech blog, stating, "If they shut down our ability to speak to the people, they shut down the Gospel; they shut down any message." The blog, however, noted that the Liberty Bell Center's establishment of a "free speech zone" is routine in cities and college campuses when officials want to maintain a tight control over potentially troublesome events. The blog cited a 2007 study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which found 259 of 346 colleges studied maintained such free speech restrictions. In the aftermath of 9/11, government officials established a free speech zone near the Liberty Bell Center, where, according to government statistics, more than 100,000 protesters demonstrate each year. In United States vs. Michael A. Marcavage, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Goldberg stood behind the practice of government-created speech zones, stating in court that "nowhere does the law say that the government cannot regulate speech on a sidewalk used by the public." Four years ago, Marcavage made headlines for being arrested as a member of the "Philadelphia 11," a group that preached on sidewalks during a homosexual rally in downtown Philadelphia. The group was charged under Pennsylvania's hate crime laws, though the charges were later dropped. Marcavage's Repent America responded in a press release it will appeal this latest arrest and court decision and "will be challenging these unconstitutional restrictions by filing for an injunction in federal court." Video of Marcavage's arrest, posted on YouTube, can be viewed below http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I don't know much about government created free-speech zones, but it sounds to me like the guy should have just moved and he would have been able to continue doing what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I don't know much about government created free-speech zones, but it sounds to me like the guy should have just moved and he would have been able to continue doing what he was doing. there is the answer.............. SUBMIT. i say F that. i dont even like evangelist but i respect their right to freedom of speech. if this guy cant preach the gospel on a public sidewalk then how the hell can any of us "preach" dissent when concerning political matters? this is yet another instance of incrimentalism. first you cant preach here..... then you cant preach there either........... now...... you just cant preach! dammit........ stand up you weak kneed sissies and recognize the erosion of our rights!! when will you make your stand? or will you? we must stop our public servants from telling us what is up and start demanding that they recognize that they, the courts, and the system belongs to us! not them! verbal permit huh? now instead of calling it what it is...... telling us when and where and sometimes even what we can say...... it is called a verbal permit? well, i give this cop and the court a verbal permit to kiss my american ass. this is not representative of the country that i fought 2 wars for!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I agree with free speech zones. Does anyone think it is reasonable that someone enjoying a visit to the Liberty Bell should have to listen to a diatribe from any cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Something I would like to know is how is "some distance" defined. If we're talking a couple hundred yards that's a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 dammit........ stand up you weak kneed sissies and recognize the erosion of our rights!! Do I have any rights to visit a national monument in peace? Why should someone else's rights to speech have to trump my rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm sure the "free speech zones" are in nice little remote corners, where no one will hear what's being said anyway. I agree with joeknows. Bit by bit our freedoms are being whittled away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Do I have any rights to visit a national monument in peace? Why should someone esle's rights to speech have to trump mine? You can't censor/restrict speech just because you don't like it. Back during Vietnam a guy walked into a CA courthouse with "**** the Draft" written on the back of his jacket. He was arrested and long story short, SCOTUS said he had the right to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 You can't censor/restrict speech just because you don't like it. Back during Vietnam a guy walked into a CA courthouse with "**** the Draft" written on the back of his jacket. He was arrested and long story short, SCOTUS said he had the right to do it. Hardly the same situation. The right to free speech does not equal the right to disrupt or interfere. That is what those verbally promoting any cause in the immediate vicinity of a national monument are doing. They are interfering with the purpose of the visitor. It is not like a street corner where the victim can walk on by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Do I have any rights to visit a national monument in peace? Why should someone else's rights to speech have to trump my rights? Do you not have the right to respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Hardly the same situation. The right to free speech does not equal the right to disrupt or interfere. That is what those verbally promoting any cause in the immediate vicinity of a national monument are doing. They are interfering with the purpose of the visitor. It is not like a street corner where the victim can walk on by.Different situation but same circumstances. Just because you don't like something someone says doesn't mean you can stop them from saying it. Unless his speech would directly incite violence or bodily harm to others it really can't be censored.That is why my second post in this thread asked how far this guy was asked to move because "some distance" is vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 What if it were that Church that shows up at military funerals to scream about God hating gays?....and just did that at the Liberty Bell because they knew people were touring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Do I have any rights to visit a national monument in peace? Why should someone else's rights to speech have to trump my rights? what? are f'n kidding me? you go see a bell that is a symbol of freedom which includes the freeom of speech which is one thing this country was founded upon and right there in plain view of these historic artifacts that are proudly displayed BECAUSE of what they stand for and yet............ we censor someone freedom of speech right in front of the bell? and dont gimme the he wasnt censored crap........ he was censored when he was told his right to free speech existed waaaaaaayyyyy ovver theerrree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Different situation but same circumstances. Just because you don't like something someone says doesn't mean you can stop them from saying it. Unless his speech would directly incite violence or bodily harm to others it really can't be censored. I'm not arguing that you can regulate what they say, just where and when they say it. So you are OK with someone screaming and shouting amything they want all day at the Vietnam Memorial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm not arguing that you can regulate what they say, just where and when they say it.So you are OK with someone screaming and shouting amything they want all day at the Vietnam Memorial? But like joeknows said, what if they are told they can only say what they want at 3 o'clock in the morning in the middle of North Dakota?And I respect people's right to protest. And as long as their protest was not going to incite violence I don't have to like what they say, I just have to put up with it. Now, if some nutjob stood up and yelled for people to burn down the Capitol building than the speech could be censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 what? are f'n kidding me? you go see a bell that is a symbol of freedom which includes the freeom of speech which is one thing this country was founded upon and right there in plain view of these historic artifacts that are proudly displayed BECAUSE of what they stand for and yet............ we censor someone freedom of speech right in front of the bell?and dont gimme the he wasnt censored crap........ he was censored when he was told his right to free speech existed waaaaaaayyyyy ovver theerrree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>........... So any ****ing big mouth can intrude on the sanctity of any location? Anarchy is OK? The biggest mouths get to scream their agenda wherever they want? They have the right to do this but I don't have the right to visit unhindered? I am not denying the right of people free speech, but in any civil society that means there need to be some restrictions on the place and time, not what is said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 So any ****ing big mouth can intrude on the sanctity of any location? Anarchy is OK? The biggest mouths get to scream their agenda wherever they want? They have the right to do this but I don't have the right to visit unhindered?I am not denying the right of people free speech, but in any civil society that means there need to be some restrictions on the place and time, not what is said. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech is such a FUNDAMENTAL right that the government has to be very careful about censoring it. Plus the guy is doing it in a public place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 But like joeknows said, what if they are told they can only say what they want at 3 o'clock in the morning in the middle of North Dakota? Except we're not talking about the middle of North Dakota at 3am. We're talking about some buffer zone that respects the rights of others, much like with Fred Phelps and the soldier funerals is required to be a certain distance away. And I respect people's right to protest. And as long as their protest was not going to incite violence I don't have to like what they say, I just have to put up with it. I respect it also. So if I have to walk past protestors that's just fine. But once I get to something like the Liberty Bell I'd like to be able to appreciate it without interference from an unwelcome bigmouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The Supreme Court has ruled that speech is such a FUNDAMENTAL right that the government has to be very careful about censoring it. Plus the guy is doing it in a public place. Sure they have to be very careful. But that right does not trump everyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 place and time is censorship man...... dont you realize that? if you say you can say what you want when you want as long as it is between 2 am and 4 am at your local mall..... do you think that is still freedom of speech? freedom of speech doesnt mean the speaker is imune from being an *******.... we dont have to like it but at least we have the freedom to do it if WE wish to use it put it like this......... WHEN obama becomes president and he does something you dont like and you want to protest ...... would you want to be told when and where you can? no ..... you will prolly want to reach as many people as possible with your message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 So Corcaigh, let me borrow your logic. I come to this message board to relax, chat with friends, and discuss the issues of the day. I don't come to see someone regularly post what I perceive to be anti-Christian threads. So out of respect for me, and my rights, shouldn't you have to go post elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Do you not have the right to respond? I'm visiting the Liberty Bell with my young family and you want me to do what exactly? Anyone promoting their agenda uninvited to an audience they intrude on is not going to go away because they are politely asked. If this person was doing the same thing in Arlington National Cemetry at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, is everyone OK with this intrusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 So any ****ing big mouth can intrude on the sanctity of any location? Anarchy is OK? The biggest mouths get to scream their agenda wherever they want? They have the right to do this but I don't have the right to visit unhindered?I am not denying the right of people free speech, but in any civil society that means there need to be some restrictions on the place and time, not what is said. you ARE unhindered because he isnt STOPPING you from visiting....... in any location there is always the chance some ******* may make it uncomfortable for you......... you just ignore them and enjoy your day........ unless your freedoms are more important than the rest of ours........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 WND'a motto should be: Only God knows the real story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm sure the "free speech zones" are in nice little remote corners, where no one will hear what's being said anyway.I agree with joeknows. Bit by bit our freedoms are being whittled away. :doh: here we go again......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.