To add to Orin’s criticism of the David Kairys Slate piece:
The Hare Krishna airport case to which Prof. Kairys points as an example of the conservative Justices’ supposed inconsistency rested on the government’s power to restrict solicitation of money on its own property. The Court has repeatedly held that solicitation of money for charitable and ideological causes is constitutionally protected. But it doesn’t follow that a government must allow solicitors to the use of the airport that the government owns for such purposes. The majority’s analysis in that case was premised entirely on the government’s extra power as a proprietor of what the majority saw as a nonpublic forum, not on any general right to restrict the gathering of money.
One can debate what the right result should be in such a case (Justice Kennedy, for instance, thought that speech was constitutionally protected even on government property). But that’s a very different issue from whether the government may limit solicitation of money — or the use of money — everywhere, and not just at government-owned airports.
Sun Tzu's Nephew says:
But in that case, the government owns the streets, the sidewalks…..where can a person engage in free speech? Their own private property?
January 24, 2010, 5:20 pmCDU says:
Sun Tzu:
That question is the subject of the Supreme Court’s public forum jurisprudence. Streets and sidewalks are considered traditional public forums, so the government’s ability to regulate free speech there is quite limited. The Krishna case involved airports, which are not generally considered public forums.
January 24, 2010, 5:58 pmLandline says:
Easy on the “solicitors,” eh?
January 24, 2010, 6:03 pm