Duluth's park preachers get legal thumbs-up

  • Article by: DAN BROWNING , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 20, 2011 - 11:02 PM

Federal judge says Duluth can't interfere with free speech rights in waterfront park, despite its lease to a private party.

  • 25
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
LeeCollinsDec. 20, 11 1:13 PM

What a joke. If an event has the area booked, it should be theirs exclusively.

17
10
beebee82Dec. 20, 11 1:43 PM

If these are the "street preachers" who regularly visit college campuses and scream at students about their God and damnation, I feel sorry for those in Duluth who will try to enjoy this light festival. It won't be possible with those guys around.

23
6
MICHAEL63Dec. 20, 11 1:44 PM

This is good. Love the constitution!

9
4
eastsidetomDec. 20, 11 1:55 PM

I have an idea... what if a large group of these street preachers got together and, without any permit or notice whatsoever, converged on the Waterfront Park and staged an "Occupy for Jesus" protest movement. That way they could stay indefinitely, have the mayor and city council issue press statements in support, get local businesses to lend them food, tents, heaters, etc, then perhaps some rag-tag second-rate folk musicians and maybe some Hollywood has-beens to stop by to join hands and voices to sing the religious equivalent of Kumbaya. Then all would be OK. Hey, if this works out alright, it just might spread around the state, the country, the world! What a concept!!!

10
23
beveryafraidDec. 20, 11 1:57 PM

Yay! We all have the right to publicly prove how annoying we can be!

22
3
beveryafraidDec. 20, 11 1:59 PM

Meanwhile "eastsidetom" doesn't mind that Wall Street insiders have made off with part of his life savings!

15
4
LARRYBOZODec. 20, 11 2:00 PM

Thats nice. I am glad that Duluth will not be arresting law abiding citizens.That will give them more time to arrest the other kind.

9
5
luzhishenDec. 20, 11 2:05 PM

"Davis found that peaceful distribution of literature, displays of signs and talking with people was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution." Seems like a reasonable decision even though I would dislike the intrusion.

13
2
moparfoolDec. 20, 11 2:09 PM

Some of the posters here seem to be annoyed or unhappy that the Constitution of the United States protects free speech; all free speech. Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

16
4
paulprinsDec. 20, 11 2:15 PM

It's obvious from many of the comments that most of you aren't that excited about the outcome here. The First Amendment is not about protecting speech you agree with, it is just about protecting the right of people to express themselves. I'm proud of the judge for standing up for the constitution, and hope that these gentlemen can have some tact & respect as they share about their religious faith.

17
4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who wins tonight's Game 4?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT