BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>BERGER</strong> v. <strong>CITY</strong> <strong>OF</strong> <strong>SEATTLE</strong><br />
255<br />
than to make government surveillance and control <strong>of</strong> the<br />
speakers easier. 8 It is hard to think <strong>of</strong> a more obviously unconstitutional<br />
measure in the First Amendment context.<br />
The majority, nonetheless, relies on a few coordination<br />
cases to uphold this <strong>of</strong>fensive registration scheme. Its cases,<br />
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), Poulos v. New<br />
Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953), and Thomas v. Chicago<br />
Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (2002), say nothing about speech<br />
registration. All three cases upheld coordination programs,<br />
not registration schemes. That these cases upheld permits<br />
actually serving a “time, place, or manner”-related purpose<br />
does not suggest that we should uphold a permitting program<br />
that does no such thing.<br />
Cox, for example, upheld a permit requirement for parades,<br />
public meetings, and “theatrical or dramatic representation[s]”<br />
which required each permit application to “specify the day<br />
and hour” <strong>of</strong> the planned performance. Cox, 312 U.S. at 571<br />
& n. 1. The permits in Cox thus genuinely did regulate the<br />
“time, place and manner” <strong>of</strong> parades and demonstrations “in<br />
relation to the other proper uses <strong>of</strong> the streets.” Id. at 576.<br />
In Poulos, a coordination requirement was also at issue. See<br />
Poulos, 345 U.S. at 398 n. 2 (setting forth a “day and hour”<br />
coordination requirement for permits). Once again the Court<br />
upheld the rule, this time in the context <strong>of</strong> religious services,<br />
because the requirement “merely call[ed] for the adjustment<br />
8 That the Seattle Center does not require a permit for each separate<br />
speech act but one permit to cover a year’s speech does not ameliorate<br />
these concerns. Permit issuance is not instant and, even if it were, anyone<br />
who wishes to spontaneously perform in the park must seek out the permit<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice (if it is open) and fill out forms before they speak. The absence <strong>of</strong><br />
a specified waiting period does not alter the practical reality that every<br />
permit application system imposes some delay.