Candidate in hot water.....
Concerning S. Lewin for City Commissioner.
I thought I would post my thoughts here instead of entering into a debate with T.S.J
1. Mr. Lewin was "detained by police" at the Farmers Market. According to our illustrious newspaper, "he planted the signs in the lawn" which leads me to believe he created a booth like area that he should pay a fee for, (a vendor) as opposed to just wandering around (a customer).
2."Lewin said the woman told him that market rules did not allow politicians there." He did not agree, as is his right, however when city police told him the same thing, Lewin chose not to leave again, so "they handcuffed me and took me out of the Farmers Market, which is kind of embarrassing for a City Commission candidate." Yes, it may have been embarrassing, but it was his choice. He could have left, talked to his lawyer, whatever, without being publicly "embarrassed".
Free speech is important. So is standing up for personal freedoms. So is equality.
In two separate instances Mr. Lewin has been asked to leave areas where everyone else has paid a fee to advertise or sell products. If he wants to campaign (advertise himself) at these events he should follow the same rules as everyone else. I seem to hold the unpopular opionion that politicians should follow the same rules as everyone else.
7 Old Comments:
I am not a First Amendment lawyer, but I think there is a flaw in your analysis. This is not a matter of treating people equally.
The law has long recognized a distinction between commercial speech (advertisements) and political speech (campaigning). The law clearly favors the latter.
I can see no good reason in either case to suppress Mr. Lewin's political speech in public places, even if there are other events occuring. Come on, candidates will campaign where there are people present.
What's next, are they going to say no one can discuss politics at the Farmer's Market?
I love research, even when it proves I am most likely wrong.
My point was that he created a specific area to do this in,which a non political intity would have been required to pay for.
I have discussed politics at the Farmers Market, but if I were intending to set up shop in a specific area for a specific purpose, I would clear it through the proper channels. But that's just me.
OK, the focus of your point seems to be that Lewin "created a booth-like area." If he had done that, then I will agree with you that he needed to pay a fee.
However, that is really not the case. What did happen is that the proprietor of one of the booths already extant allowed Lewin to lean his signs against her booth.
When I was there (which was not when Lewin was arrested), the signs were not "planted," which implies that they were inserted into the ground. They were leaning against an already extant booth, with the permission of the booth owner.
This seems to be a different situation entirely. While I agree that the Market can restrict candidates from setting up a booth, on their own, at their market, I emphatically do not agree that they have the right to either 1) restrict political speech at the market or 2) to keep booth owners from engaging in political speech.
That is what I was trying to say, and I agree with both your points. I have also discovered that regardless of the Market, Lewin was probably within his rights simply because the area around the civic center is public property (city park or boulavard)and he was not causing a disturbance by his presence which would interfere with the Market or creating a situation where the Market would seem to be supporting him and excluding others.
My information on his location and actions is from the Tribune article.
Firefly;
Trusting the Tribune with actual facts? That is brave.
Actually, I am not sure if Stuart is within his rights in this instance. The Market is a private group, and leases those normally public spaces for commercial purposes. The fact that the lease is given at a price that is extremely below market may, or may not, be relevant.
As I posted over on my blog here, I am not sure if the Market can be considered to be a public square.
Take it another way. The flower garden and arch over at Gibson Park is a beautiful public space that is enjoyed by people throughout the town. However, that space is regularly rented out for weddings.
If I rent that space to get married, I have the right to control who is in that space during the period of my lease and what they do in that space. To do otherwise would make the rental useless, and perhaps ruin the wedding.
I don't know what the city charges to rent out that arch and flower garden, but I am sure that they make more than $300 per year on the space.
That all said, I think that it is really stupid of the city to try to restrict Stuart from speaking. They have made a mountain out of a molehill. He really is not in hot water, but the end result has been a boost to his campaign.
We all we see if I am right when we see numbers tonight!
It sure didn't help him in his campaign.
But on the finer legal point, I would suggest that the analysis depends on the actual language of the Farmer's Market lease, right?
Absoulutely. The lease would make things much clearer.
And to defend myself Aaron, I used the term "information" regarding the Tribune, Not "Facts". If I am incorrect on anything it's the Trubunes fault!
<< Home