BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>BERGER</strong> v. <strong>CITY</strong> <strong>OF</strong> <strong>SEATTLE</strong><br />
uals or groups participating in an authorized demonstration or<br />
special event to solicit donations within the confines <strong>of</strong> a<br />
restricted permit area such as that assigned to ISKCON. It<br />
does not require the Park Service to let rampant panhandling<br />
go unchecked.” Id.<br />
[16] Unlike the solicitation ban in ISKCON, which bore an<br />
at-most attenuated relationship to the interests <strong>of</strong> the Park Service,<br />
the Seattle Center’s bar on active solicitation directly<br />
addresses the problems <strong>of</strong> heckling and patron disturbance<br />
revealed in prior complaints. Our reasoning in ACORN and<br />
the considerations noted by the D.C. Circuit in ISKCON support<br />
a conclusion that the Seattle Center’s bar on active solicitation<br />
was narrowly tailored to the city’s significant interest<br />
in protecting the Center’s patrons from disruptive and<br />
unwanted advances.<br />
[17] In addition to being content neutral and narrowly tailored,<br />
Rule F.3.a leaves open ample alternative avenues for<br />
solicitation. Contrary to Berger’s contention that street performers<br />
“are completely barred from requesting donations,”<br />
the Campus Rules expressly provide: “Donations for performances<br />
may be accepted passively in an instrument case or<br />
other receptacle provided for that purpose by the performer.<br />
The receptacle may include a written sign that informs the<br />
public that such donations are sought.” The bar only reaches<br />
active solicitations, which were the source <strong>of</strong> the complaints<br />
brought to the attention <strong>of</strong> Seattle Center authorities. Performers<br />
retain ample means to solicit funds without harassing<br />
patrons. This rule satisfies the third and final prong <strong>of</strong> the test<br />
and is a reasonable restriction on expression.<br />
D<br />
233<br />
We next turn to Berger’s constitutional challenge to Rule<br />
F.5, which confines street performances to sixteen “designated<br />
locations on the Seattle Center grounds,” and specifies<br />
these by reference to a map provided with the permit applica-