News & Politics - Not So 'Free' Speech

migamoo · 05-04-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Free speech? Not along Main Street
Salt Lake City judge upholds land swap in Mormon church plaza case
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 Posted: 10:04 AM EDT (1404 GMT)

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday upheld a land swap that permits the Mormon church to restrict speech on a block of Main Street that it purchased from Salt Lake City.

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball dismissed a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and others that said the deal violated the First Amendment by limiting speech and effectively endorsing the church.

The ACLU said it would appeal to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Alan Sullivan, attorney for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said the church was gratified by the ruling. "The church wants the plaza to be an oasis of peace and beauty in the midst of our busy city, a place that everyone can enjoy," he said.

The city gave the church control of the plaza that it had purchased earlier in exchange for church-owned land elsewhere and more than $4 million.

Lee Siegel, a writer and one of the plaintiffs, said: "I did not expect a ruling in favor of ... fundamental constitutional right from any federal judge who's a product of Utah and its theocracy, which suffers from a severe and unhealthy allergy to dissent."

Katis · 05-04-2004, 10:07 AM

I'm torn. On one hand if it is their property they have the right to decide what happens on it. On the other hand it's in the middle of the city. It would have been better if the city had not sold them the plaza. What kind of speech are they not allowing, I wonder.

Maresa · 05-05-2004, 05:08 AM

I agree. I mean, it *technically* is private property, but are they going to ban cursing, or something like that? Or protestors? And if it is protesting, why isn't it mentioned?

**GrhmLz** · 05-05-2004, 11:59 AM

I am also confused. What kind of speech is being banned?

I understand that the government gave the church control of the plaza. But the facts are a bit vague to me. Did the church receive the plaze in exchange for giving the government church-owned land? What exactly was the exchange? The wording is a bit confusing there.

If there was a contractual agreement there between the church and city with each receiving what they were suppose to, I fail to see how that is a violation of the first amendment. The city wouldn't be endorsing the church if they willingly gave up all rights to it through this agreement. The plaza now belongs to the church and not the city, right? And I still fail to see how it is being interpreted as a violation of free speech? Can anyone explaint that reasoning?

n e r b l e · 05-10-2004, 11:11 PM

it's thier property, they can do what they want with it. i think it's a little wierd but

. on the other hand outside of private property then i'll get up in arms.

SuperDeluxe · 05-11-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fieryangel
from cnn.com

Not really suprised with the LDS's church's stance.

I'm Not Your Boy Toy · 05-11-2004, 11:46 AM

if its their property they have the right to do whatever they want with it. i wouldnt mind goin to place where i wont hear the F-Bomb and the many other curse words we have today.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Not So 'Free' Speech