Resources on Free Speech and Evangelism in the Public Square

Courtesy of Truth Defenders

(Note to all: Reformed Piety & Ethics did not put this together. I just merged all the blog accounts under one name. I am giving credit, however, to those responsible for the research.)

"The Truth Shall Make You Free" John 8: 32

Many Christians are hindered from openly declaring the Glorious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ because of fear. A fear that comes from ignorance of the law concerning their rights. This blogger has been set up to educate and encouraged my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to openly share their faith.

By the sovereign grace of the True and Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, these rights are extended to all who wish to exercise them. May the faithful servant of God take advantage of these rights while they still exist, for the time will come when the lights of freedom will no longer shine and we will be forced to join the underground church, as many of our brothers and sisters are now in many of the closed and communist countries.

Supreme Court Rulings:

U.S. Iowa, 1969: Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome right to freedom of expression.[1]

Also, see identical ruling, Federal District Court, Texas, 1969:[2]

Federal Court of Appeals, Florida, 1972: Hostile audience is not basis for restraining otherwise legal first amendment activity.[3]

Federal Court of Appeals, Florida, 1974: Public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because ideas are themselves of offensive to some of their hearers.[4]

Federal Court of Appeals, Indiana, 1974: Freedom of expression (does not mean freedom to express only approved ideas; it means freedom to express any idea.[5]

Federal Court of Appeals, District of Colubia, 1977: The Constitution mandates that access to the streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places for purpose of exercising first amendment rights cannot be denied broadly and absolutely.[6]

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, April 30, 1970: An ordinance that proscribes conduct that tends to "disturb or annoy others" is both vague and overbroad. I he constitutionally protected exercise of free expression frequently causes a disturbance, for the very purpose of the first amendment is to stimulate the creation and communication of new, and therefore, often controversial ideas. The prohibition against conduct that tends to disturb another would literally make it a crime to deliver an unpopular speech that resulted in a "disturbance." Such a restriction is a clearly invalid restriction of constitutionally protected free expression.[7]

Federal District Court, Tennessee, 1978: The fact that persons might express their religious views at some place other than the public streets, sidewalks, and other areas of the city does not have any consequence in determining the validity of permit requirements with respect to the use of such public areas.[8]

Federal Court of Appeals, Virginia, 1982: Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free expression and their enforcement cannot he based on content of speech thereby restricted.

A compelling governmental interest unrelated to speech must he served by restriction on speech.

Ordinance containing restrictions on free expression must be drawn with narrow specificity to be no more restrictive than necessary to secure such interest.

Adequate alternative channels of communication must be left open by restrictions on free expression.[9]

Federal Court of Appeals, Virginia, 1973: The first amendment protects from state interference the expression in a public place of the unpopular as well as the popular and the right to assemble peaceably in a public place in the interest and furtherance of the unpopular as well as the popular.[10]

Federal Court of Appeals, Virginia, 1972: Government may not favor one religion over another.[11]

U.S., Arkansas, 1968: The freedom of religion provision of the first amendment forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of a theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma. The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.[12]

Federal Court of Appeals, Texas, 1972: "Controversy" is never sufficient in and of itself to stifle the views of any citizen.[13]

U.S, California, 1971: As a general matter, the establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits government from abandoning secular purposes in order to put an imprimatur on one religion, or on religion as such, or to favor the adherence of any sect or religious organization.[14]

Having established the Supreme Court rulings being in favor of free speech, we hereby freely express our understanding; that all religious, non-religious, political, philosophical, public or private world views and practices that conflict with Holy Writ are in error and may put one in danger of hellfire if not repented of. Repentance is the turning from sin to the True and Living God through his Son Jesus the Christ as revealed in the Holy Scriptures (the Bible).

Feel free to copy and distribute this list of rights to anyone involved in evangelistic ministries.

ATTENTION: It is important that you realize that the law changes frequently, it is your responsibility to be sure that you are acting within the current laws in your state or district.

END NOTES

1. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 89 S. Ct. 733, 393/ U.S. 53/21 L. Eid. 2d. 731).
   
2. (Calbillo v. San Jancinto Junior College, 305 F. Supp. 857, cause remanded 434 F. 2d. 609, appeal after remand 446 F. 2d. 887).
   
3. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Collie v. Chicago Park Dist., 460 F. 2d. 746).
   
4. West's F.S.A. 877.03; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Wiegand v. Seaver, 504 F. 2d. 303).
   
5. (Perry v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. 499 F. 2d. 797).
   
6. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, 566 F. 2d. 107, 184 U. S. App. D. C. 215).
   
7. (Gardner v. Ceci, 312 F. Supp. 516/ see also Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 968, N.D. 111. 1968).
   
8. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Smith v. City of Manchester, 460 F. Supp. 30).
   
9. Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, 683 F. 2d. 853, on rehearing 710 F. 2d. 148. Also, see Salahuddin v. Carlson, 523 F. Supp. 314.).
   
10. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (National Socialist White People's Party v. Ringers, 473 F. 2d. 1010).
    
11. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (U.S. v. Crowthers, 456 F. 2d. 1074).
    
12. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Epperson v. State of Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266).
    
13. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I (Shanlcy v. Northeast Independent School Dist., Bexar County, Texas, 462 F. 2d. 960).
    
14. U.S.C.A. Const. Amed. I (Negre v. Larsen, 91 S. Ct. 828).