Street Preachers at Tour of Lights

[Ghel]

There's some street preachers based in Duluth, MN, who are notorious for their behavior at public events. I previously ran into them at Grandma's Marathon (named after the restaurant chain, not because grandmas run in it, necessarily). Their methods include standing on a stepladder and shouting at crowds as they go by, while a second person stands nearby with a huge sign listing Bible verses saying how everyone who doesn't believe exactly the same things they do is going to burn in Hell.

Last year, during the Bentleyville Tour of Lights, they were kicked out several nights for blocking traffic (there's only one path through the tour) and shouting at little kids about sex and drugs ("I used to be a fornicator! I used to be a drug addict! Then I found Jesus!") while they're trying to toast marshmallows or wait in line to visit Santa.

So the street preachers sued the city. The city argued that Bentleyville was renting the park from the city, so during the Tour of Lights, the park became private property and the staff of Bentleyville could decide who could attend and who couldn't. (Even though it's a free event.) The judge disagreed, saying it was still a public park.

So this year, the city set up an area outside of the park labeled a "free speech zone." The preachers were instructed to only preach within that area. So they sued again. And the judge said they couldn't be limited to that "free speech zone."

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/eve...cle/id/251886/

I think they were right to sue the city. They have the right to preach. However, I also think that Bentleyville staff should be allowed to throw them out if they're being disruptive, as they have been in the past. Blocking traffic and refusing to move should be a valid reason to throw them out, at least for the night. Yelling at kids about sex, drugs, or violence (at what's billed as a family-friendly event) should be a enough to get them thrown out for the season.

This shouldn't be about their first amendment rights. It should be about disturbing the peace.

[TheHuckster]

I agree that, besides disruptive behavior such as blocking traffic, they have the right to preach. However, if you are repeatedly disruptive, I see no problem with issuing a ban from the park in much the same way one can be banned from a library if they are a repeated troublemaker.

I do think the way they worded the sign "Free Speech Zone" is a bit poor, though. The city is basically saying, "Your first amendment rights are invalid except HERE" which is very off-putting.

[daleduke17]

Have the police come get the preachers for disorderly conduct. They've already been told to pipe down (you can still talk, but please be respectful), and they are still causing a ruckus, so dis-con them.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I agree that as soon as they become disruptive it's not longer about free speech. They should not be able to block traffic. Little kids should not have to be chastised and harassed when all they want to do is be in awe and wonder that happens around the holiday season. Free speech means you're allowed to stand up and make your voice heard, it does not mean that you can force other people to listen to you via harassment.

Though, I have to say, a group tried that at an event in my hometown when I was little, and my mom swears I made the most adorable cat butt face before starting to kick one of them in the shins for telling me I was going to hell. They pretty much stopped when all the adults would either straight up ignore or would tell their children, "These are crazy people, and you don't want to be like the mean, crazy people do you?"

[Seifer]

The preachers are allowed to be bigoted assbags, but the city is also allowed to have them arrested for disorderly conduct and harassment. It's not about arresting them for what they're saying, it's about arresting them because they're interrupting the proceedings and getting in the way.

[Ghel]

Part of the problem with this case is that it seems the city's lawyer wasn't arguing that the preachers were being disruptive. He was arguing it as being a private venue. I think it would have been decided differently if the city's lawyer had argued it from either the preachers being disruptive or the preachers infringing on the other guests' first amendment rights.

On the latter, the preachers' blocking traffic makes the other guests a captive audience. There's only one route through the tour, so the other guests can't avoid the preachers. They can't even leave the event to avoid the preachers, because guests are discouraged from going backwards through the tour. That's how I would have argued it.

[daleduke17]

You keep driving, albeit slowly. Push your way through the idiots.

[protege]

Dale, some of that happened here...when the anti-war protesters decided it would be a good idea to block traffic during rush hour. Yeah, interfering with people getting to work is a *great* way to get them to join your cause Instead, they got their asses handed to them by angry commuters, not to mention by a few business owners who couldn't get their deliveries because of the barricades those idiots had set up.

[Rageaholic]

If you're threatening people with hellfire, you've crossed a line.

[Mr. Anubite]

Not to mention that if they were banned, they would advertise it all over the country as OMG LOOK THE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS ARE BEING PERSECUTED!!!111!ELEVENTY!11!

[Salesmonkey]

The trouble with banning disruptive protest is that the entire goal of protest is to be disruptive. It's a chance for a group of people who feel disenfranchised to publicly, and at cost of effort and time and embarrassment to themselves, let people know they feel things aren't fair. There is a great and cherished history of protesters who have been injured by authorities who felt they were being too "disruptive".

As I write this, in Tahrir Square in Egypt there's a bunch of people being disruptive. We can't deploy special pleading as an argument and say that their protest is righteous (because we like democracy) and that the protest of street preachers is different because they are crazy.

We have to tolerate the speech of others, no matter how vile, in order to preserve our other freedoms that have been won by dissenters and protesters. It's cliche, but their words do really "speak for themselves". Let the children come, and view, and thereby learn about this corrosive and life-destroying gibberish. It's like an inoculation- once they see what religion can do to a person, they may think twice about using it themselves. Like the "before and after" pictures of methamphetamine users that are on billboards in my area.

[Panacea]

I think Salesmonkey has made some good points. Likely the lawyer arguing the private venue tactic did so because he knew the courts would throw out the public disturbance argument.

These street preachers are using classic civil disobedience tactics: the same methods that led to the Civil Rights Act.

Public mockery is the best defense to these guys. Stage a counter protest and embarrass the hell out of them.

[Rageaholic]

Not to mention that if they were banned, they would advertise it all over the country as OMG LOOK THE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS ARE BEING PERSECUTED!!!111!ELEVENTY!11!

lol, I love it when they do that.

It's so hard to take these people seriously when they feel persecuted by not being allowed to persecute others.

I think Salesmonkey has made some good points. Likely the lawyer arguing the private venue tactic did so because he knew the courts would throw out the public disturbance argument.

These street preachers are using classic civil disobedience tactics: the same methods that led to the Civil Rights Act.

Public mockery is the best defense to these guys. Stage a counter protest and embarrass the hell out of them.

But I don't even understand what these people are protesting. They aren't fighting for anyones rights or protesting anything unjust. They're just yelling at people telling them that they're going to hell.

I like the idea of a counter protest though.

[Panacea]

But I don't even understand what these people are protesting. They aren't fighting for anyones rights or protesting anything unjust. They're just yelling at people telling them that they're going to hell.

Religion can be an emotionally intense experience. Some people react to the experience in a very unhealthy way; they interpret spreading the Good News as a mandate to shove their newly acquired religious fervor down the throats of other people, with the best of intentions. They genuinely believe they are saving souls by doing this.

What they miss is, faith is an experience that must be entered into freely and willingly, with a complete understanding of what you are getting yourself into. That's why it's taken over 10 years for me to complete my own faith journey. The Catholic Church doesn't just admit someone to membership because they say they want to join. Converts undergo the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, which takes months of study and preparation. It's nothing like what I expected it to be, but I've come away with a much better understanding of what it means to be Catholic, what the Church really is, and what it teaches, and I fully understand what I am entering into and becoming by taking this journey . . . a journey that will not end when I am baptized at Easter.

I think these street preachers have a very superficial understanding of what it really means to be Christian, and its unfortunate that their behavior is negatively impacting the ability of other people to have a good time.

[Seifer]

Let the children come, and view, and thereby learn about this corrosive and life-destroying gibberish. It's like an inoculation- once they see what religion can do to a person, they may think twice about using it themselves. Like the "before and after" pictures of methamphetamine users that are on billboards in my area.

It depends on the age of the children. Young children are still at a developmental stage where they will believe everything an adult says. They will believe anything - that's why kids will still leave cookies out for Santa and his reindeer well past their toddler years. Once they hit a certain age, they're able to mentally reason things out and figure out what is or isn't true.

I wouldn't want really young kids standing around listening to some psychopath scream at them, because they wouldn't understand what was going on. Older kids? They'd get more than nightmares out of the experience.