SB152: Tim Melson v. Project Say Something

 

In case you're new to this state, Alabama has no "home rule." This means laws that apply to an unincorporated area must be approved by the state legislature. Welcome to the mess.

Laws affecting these areas may be passed at the state level if there's no opposition...of if they're sneaked in as with Lynn Greer's theft of voting rights from the citizens of Florence. This session, Sen. Tim Melson has introduced Senate Bill 152 that would change how protests, demonstrations, etc., may be handled in Lauderdale County. The bill has made its way 50% through the legislative process and shows no signs of slowing down.

Generally speaking, this new law would allow Lauderdale County to restrict where protests may be held and add fees for the demonstrations. How this would conflict with city regulations is almost anyone's guess. In other words, the county sheriff could restrict protest movements at the courthouse, but how about if the demonstrators moved to Ricatoni's?

Project Say Something has indicated that a lawsuit will be filed if the bill passes. Oh, well, it's only our tax dollars used to defend these questionable laws. We're calling this law questionable due in great part to an essay posted on Legiscan by Florence resident John Crowder:

The federal courts have been expansionist in their modern-era opinions on First Amendment speech. Unreasonably restrictive "free speech zones" are not lawful. A few years ago, the University of North Alabama had an unconstitutional policy that severely liminted speech making to a small area in front of the Guillot Center They have wisely and substantially modified that requirement. There are details of S152, a bill introduced in the Alabama Senate, that probably would not survive legal challenge. This could get interesting. See LegiScan for details of this bills status in the Senate.https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB152/2021...

Perhaps the most constitutionally questionable element of SB 152 is its definition in Section 1 (a) (3) :

"LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. A designated public forum that is limited for use by certain types of groups or for discussion of certain subjects, or limited in another manner, but not limited based on viewpoint."

Give me a break! Prohibiting subjects other than the one(s) specified in some approved list is inherently a prohibition "based on viewpoint"! In essence, such a prohibition is itself the most extreme kind of viewpoint-limited requirement in that it utterly excludes some some viepoints altogether. And limiting a public forum to discussions by "certain types or groups" is equally extreme.

The City of Florence or some other municipality in Lauderdale County, should it elect to enact an ordinance as prescribed by this flagrantly unconstitutional act, would be saying that some persons or groups, but not others, may use a "designated public forum" for discussion of "certain subjects, " but not others . Interested persons might consider contacting Senator Melson's office directly to express your opinion on this proposed legislation. https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB152/2021... Office phone: 334-261-0773
Email: tim.melson@alsenate.gov

For those interested in concise information concerning government regulation of speech, this article from the Encyclopedia Britannica should be helpful: https://www.britannica.com/.../Permissible-restrictions... A pertinent excerpt from the article speaks to the issue at hand:

"Speech on government-owned sidewalks and in parks (often labeled “traditional public forums”) is as protected against government suppression as is speech on the speaker’s own property. The same is true for speech by public-university students, at least when the speech is not part of class discussions or class assignments."

Those wishing to pursue the topic of freedom of speech in America in depth might consider obtaining a copy of the definitive book on this subject: A WORTHY TRADITION, by Harry Kalven, Jr.

Now, isn't New Zealand looking pretty good right about now?