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 />
zones is precisely the sort <strong>of</strong> capricious restraint, likely to<br />
chill far more speech than the Seattle Center would be justified<br />
in regulating, that Schenck struck down. 519 U.S. at 377-<br />
80.<br />
By somehow finding a captive audience in a public park<br />
and then endorsing a buffer zone as restrictive as that struck<br />
down in Schenck, the majority turns the law on its head. It<br />
does not simply abdicate its responsibility to safeguard the<br />
rights <strong>of</strong> the public but creates dangerous new legal principles<br />
that have no obvious stopping point. I cannot go along with<br />
this perilous course.<br />
III. Conclusion<br />
267<br />
The majority does not acknowledge how radically its holdings<br />
alter our law, creating a legal structure which will make<br />
it far easier to shut down discourse in public parks and other<br />
traditional public fora. Democracies survive and grow through<br />
public conversations among their citizens. For this reason, we<br />
have always viewed any limitations on speech in traditional<br />
public fora with extreme skepticism. Today’s opinion departs<br />
from that long tradition. I respectfully dissent.