Liberty Bell irony
Posted: January 17th, 2008, 1:07 pm
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/artic ... cleID=2821“No Free Speech Allowed” at Site of Liberty Bell Bookmark this page E-mail this article to a friend Print this article
Lee Duigon » Bio
Posted on January 16, 2008
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 for a redress of grievances.
—The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“Due to policy changes freedom of religion and speech are now prohibited anywhere on the public park grounds without a permit, and only then if in the designated ‘free speech zone.’” —Michael Marcavage, describing park policy as explained to him over the telephone by the chief of park rangers at the Liberty Bell Center[1]
Michael Marcavage has been arrested again, this time for exercising his free speech rights in the vicinity of … the Liberty Bell.
Marcavage and his attorney, Scott Shields, went to court January 9, but the prosecutor wasn’t ready to try the case and was granted a continuance.
Marcavage was arrested October 6 by rangers at Independence National Historical Park for refusing to confine his street preaching to a government-designated “free speech zone” where, he said, no one would have been able to hear him. It was not the first time he’d preached against abortion to tourists at the Liberty Bell, nor the first time park rangers asked him to stop; but it was the first time he was arrested for it.
“They only arrested him,” said Shields, “not any of the people screaming stuff about breast cancer research at the same time in the same place. It seems the rangers are only worried about speech about God—because, they said, ‘Some people don’t want to hear it.’ They can’t possibly justify this.”
“Speech zones, when challenged, are generally struck down by the courts,” said Greg West of the Alliance Defense Fund. “That’s because they’re objectively and selectively applied, usually against Christians.
“ADF has tried a lot of these cases, and we have an excellent record. Pretty much every time we go into court to challenge free speech zones, we win. It’s a pretty clear case that Michael’s constitutional rights were violated.”
