No Free Speech For Those Who Preach

Were you aware that in the United States of America, you are required to obtain a “Verbal Permit” before you are allowed to speak or preach on a public street, sidewalk, or – in front of the LIBERTY BELL?

Now I can understand the need for ‘free speech areas’, or designated locations for large protests that would otherwise disrupt the liberty of other countrymen from conducting their normal course of business or travel – but to restrict a single person from preaching or speaking in public is something we see in socialist and communist tyrannies – not in the United States of America.

But this is becoming commonplace now, in the new normal for a nation that has abandoned liberty for the religion of not offending, and being controlled by the state.

Man fined for preaching near Liberty Bell
Judge finds street evangelist guilty of ‘interfering’

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

A man arrested for preaching on a public sidewalk too close to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia has been declared guilty of violating federal law. He was fined over $400 and put on probation, told not to go in Independence National Historical Park – or on its surrounding sidewalks – for a year.

On October 7, 2007, Michael A. Marcavage, director of the evangelistic organization Repent America, stood on the sidewalk outside the Liberty Bell Center, on the western edge of Independence Historical Park, preaching a message against abortion and declaring that “we need to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” to a crowd waiting to enter the park.

“This is where we have been on a number of other occasions,” Marcavage told WND. “This time we were ministering to people waiting in line to see the Liberty Bell, speaking on the message written on the Bell, which reads, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout all the land.'”

Marcavage was then confronted by a National Park Service ranger, who demanded he move to a “free speech zone,” some distance from the entrance, where he could continue preaching under the permission of a “verbal permit.”

 

Marcavage refused to move and refused to accept a verbal permit, claiming the 1st Amendment protected his right to speak in public.

He was then arrested, taken away and charged with violating the terms of the permit that he had refused to accept. Marcavage’s arrest, seen afterward on YouTube, can be viewed below.

On Friday, in the case of United States of America vs. Michael A Marcavage, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport found the preacher guilty of violating the terms of a verbal permit and “interfering with agency functions.”

After the arrest Marcavage posted his thoughts on a free speech blog, stating, “If they shut down our ability to speak to the people, they shut down the Gospel; they shut down any message.”

The blog, however, noted that the Liberty Bell Center’s establishment of a “free speech zone” is routine in cities and college campuses when officials want to maintain a tight control over potentially troublesome events. The blog cited a 2007 study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which found 259 of 346 colleges studied maintained such free speech restrictions.

In the aftermath of 9/11 government officials established a free speech zone near the Liberty Bell Center, where, according to government statistics, more than 100,000 protesters demonstrate each year.

In United States vs. Michael A. Marcavage, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Goldberg stood on the practice of government-created speech zones, stating in court that “nowhere does the law say that the government cannot regulate speech on a sidewalk used by the public.”

Four years ago, Marcavage made headlines for being arrested as a member of the “Philadelphia 11,” a group that preached on sidewalks during a homosexual rally in downtown Philadelphia. The group was charged under Pennsylvania’s hate crime laws, though the charges were later dropped.

 

 

Marcavage’s Repent America responded in a press release that it will appeal this latest arrest and court decision and that it “will be challenging these unconstitutional restrictions by filing for an injunction in federal court.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture War

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s