Letter to the Management of Kent Station
dArrell wArren
GNN Local Leader
Ipreach2@msn.com
Date 12/7/06
Mr. John Hind’s
Management Of Kent Station
Reference: Harassment while exercising our right to Freedom of Speech
Dear Mr. Hinds:
Are you aware that my team and I are being harassed and intimidated on a regular basis by your security officer, Patrick?
We have a God given, constitutional protected, First Amendment Right – Freedom of Speech.
This freedom speech includes the sidewalks of Kent Station. Every time we come to Kent Station to open air preach and share our faith through passing out gospel tracts, Patrick stops, interrupts, or stands directly next to us finding any excuse to antagonize us.
When I first came to Kent Station I checked with law enforcement and the City’s Deputy Attorney to find that the City of Kent owns the sidewalks at Kent Station and that we have 12 ft from the curb that we are allowed to preach and pass out gospel tracts, because this is public property.
Patrick has insisted that the footage was only 10 ft until a week ago when I challenged him; he then reluctantly admitted that it was indeed 12 ft and not 10 ft. Along with challenging our use of space, Patrick has insisted that we are not allowed on the private property of Kent Station, even though we regularly patronize the business. One of our members was seated on a bench having a private conversation with another member and Patrick came up and stood close enough to listen to the conversation to see what they were talking about. He finally said that they could not sit there because they were beyond the ‘12 ft’ limit. Another time someone was taking pictures and he said photos were not allowed because of some copy right law and that there was a $15,000 fine. He was unable to show any documentation when asked to prove what he was saying. Patrick has said to us, we are ‘not welcomed’ or ‘not wanted’ at Kent Station, and that he wishes we would ‘leave’.
Another time one of our team members was open air preaching while two other members were standing watching. Patrick again interrupted and said that they ‘could not go beyond the 12 ft from the curb’. This seems unreasonable seeing that all they were doing was watching someone preach.
Other team members have been asked to move as well when watching someone preach.
Patrick’s actions towards us are incorrect and illegal. We are being singled out and antagonized not because we don’t patronize the businesses, but because we are exercising our first amendment rights.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
The Fourteen Amendment says: "…nor shall State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law..."
The Supreme Court has ruled that these two parts of the Constitution severely limit the power of federal, state, and local governments to interfere with speech activities on sidewalks, streets, and in parks.
John, I could provide you with a host of Supreme Court Cases, but I'll only note a few.
United States Supreme Court Cases: Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. The mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate, content neutral objectives.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
Speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
Free speech expression may be regulated for noise content in appropriate places such as hospitals or schools while classes are in session. The general test is to ask whether the expressive activity is basically incompatible with the normal activities of a particular place at a particular time. Un-amplified speech is permissible for "street preachers" on public streets.
Kent City Code: 8.05.140 Other Exemptions.
The following shall be exempt from all provisions of KCC 8.05.090:10. Sounds caused by natural phenomena and un-amplified human voices.
It is our understanding that un-amplified, human voices, means the human voice without electronic amplification.
In America, citizens, police and city officials are still held to the legal standard that can be restated in the folk maxim: I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death, your right to say it. That is still the law in these United States. It is also true that I may be offended by what you say but I must protect your constitutional right to say it.
Witnessing, 'Street preaching', and distribution of free literature are constitutionally protected activities because they are ways citizens have always exercised their rights of free speech.
In closing, my point in writing this letter is to first to inform you how your security guard, Patrick, has been treating us while we are exercising our freedom of speech on public property at Kent Station; and second, to request a response from you as to whether Patrick is acting under your authority when dealing with us in the manner.
Mr. Hinds, I trust you will carefully consider the seriousness of the laws protecting freedom of speech and our desire to preach the gospel at Kent Station. I’m looking forward to hearing from you concerning your position and Patrick’s actions toward us in regard to our exercising our first amendment rights.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Darrell Warren
GNN Local Leader
Ipreach2@msn.com
Date 12/7/06
Mr. John Hind’s
Management Of Kent Station
Reference: Harassment while exercising our right to Freedom of Speech
Dear Mr. Hinds:
Are you aware that my team and I are being harassed and intimidated on a regular basis by your security officer, Patrick?
We have a God given, constitutional protected, First Amendment Right – Freedom of Speech.
This freedom speech includes the sidewalks of Kent Station. Every time we come to Kent Station to open air preach and share our faith through passing out gospel tracts, Patrick stops, interrupts, or stands directly next to us finding any excuse to antagonize us.
When I first came to Kent Station I checked with law enforcement and the City’s Deputy Attorney to find that the City of Kent owns the sidewalks at Kent Station and that we have 12 ft from the curb that we are allowed to preach and pass out gospel tracts, because this is public property.
Patrick has insisted that the footage was only 10 ft until a week ago when I challenged him; he then reluctantly admitted that it was indeed 12 ft and not 10 ft. Along with challenging our use of space, Patrick has insisted that we are not allowed on the private property of Kent Station, even though we regularly patronize the business. One of our members was seated on a bench having a private conversation with another member and Patrick came up and stood close enough to listen to the conversation to see what they were talking about. He finally said that they could not sit there because they were beyond the ‘12 ft’ limit. Another time someone was taking pictures and he said photos were not allowed because of some copy right law and that there was a $15,000 fine. He was unable to show any documentation when asked to prove what he was saying. Patrick has said to us, we are ‘not welcomed’ or ‘not wanted’ at Kent Station, and that he wishes we would ‘leave’.
Another time one of our team members was open air preaching while two other members were standing watching. Patrick again interrupted and said that they ‘could not go beyond the 12 ft from the curb’. This seems unreasonable seeing that all they were doing was watching someone preach.
Other team members have been asked to move as well when watching someone preach.
Patrick’s actions towards us are incorrect and illegal. We are being singled out and antagonized not because we don’t patronize the businesses, but because we are exercising our first amendment rights.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
The Fourteen Amendment says: "…nor shall State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law..."
The Supreme Court has ruled that these two parts of the Constitution severely limit the power of federal, state, and local governments to interfere with speech activities on sidewalks, streets, and in parks.
John, I could provide you with a host of Supreme Court Cases, but I'll only note a few.
United States Supreme Court Cases: Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. The mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate, content neutral objectives.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
Speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
Free speech expression may be regulated for noise content in appropriate places such as hospitals or schools while classes are in session. The general test is to ask whether the expressive activity is basically incompatible with the normal activities of a particular place at a particular time. Un-amplified speech is permissible for "street preachers" on public streets.
Kent City Code: 8.05.140 Other Exemptions.
The following shall be exempt from all provisions of KCC 8.05.090:10. Sounds caused by natural phenomena and un-amplified human voices.
It is our understanding that un-amplified, human voices, means the human voice without electronic amplification.
In America, citizens, police and city officials are still held to the legal standard that can be restated in the folk maxim: I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death, your right to say it. That is still the law in these United States. It is also true that I may be offended by what you say but I must protect your constitutional right to say it.
Witnessing, 'Street preaching', and distribution of free literature are constitutionally protected activities because they are ways citizens have always exercised their rights of free speech.
In closing, my point in writing this letter is to first to inform you how your security guard, Patrick, has been treating us while we are exercising our freedom of speech on public property at Kent Station; and second, to request a response from you as to whether Patrick is acting under your authority when dealing with us in the manner.
Mr. Hinds, I trust you will carefully consider the seriousness of the laws protecting freedom of speech and our desire to preach the gospel at Kent Station. I’m looking forward to hearing from you concerning your position and Patrick’s actions toward us in regard to our exercising our first amendment rights.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Darrell Warren
posted by dArrell wArren at 7:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home