Last week, after observing signs in National Parks purporting to limit the exercise of the First Amendment, Attorney Joel Ready sent the following letter to Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Department of Interior, and to Michael Reynolds, the director of the National Park Service.
Dear Sec. Zinke:
At the end of August, I honeymooned with my wife in the Smoky Mountains National Park. The Smokies are a sort of home away from home for my family. I spent many summer weeks there growing up, and of course, my wife and I now have wonderful memories of the park as well. The park has earned its place as the most visited park in America, with its lush beauty and unique wildlife. We had the opportunity to quietly observe two black bears while we were there, as well as to visit Clingman’s Dome and Cades Cove, among other sites.
However, I write to let you know of a concern I had while visiting the Smokies. During our trip, we stopped at one of the visitors’ centers,[1] where we were confronted by [the sign pictured above].
As you are probably aware, Mr. Secretary, the First Amendment cannot be confined to a small portion of government-owned ground. The First Amendment is designed to prevent the “abridgment” of speech, no matter where it occurs. Nowhere is this protection stronger than on government property. While the government is free to engage in reasonable “time, place and manner restrictions,” such restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly-tailored to advance a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.[2] Parks are “quintessential public forums [where] the government may not prohibit all communicative activity.”[3] I believe that no compelling government interest is at play here, and that these zones in front of visitors’ centers[4] (making up only a fraction of a percent of the total park) do not constitute a “narrowly-tailored” solution in any event.
The Smoky Mountains National Park, like our nation, was born in the cauldron of political dissent and protest. When the federal government used the powers of eminent domain to seize the land in the 1920s and ‘30s, a number of evicted local families protested in different ways, including protesting FDR’s speech in the park (which was, of course, full of political statements, as any Presidential speech would be).[5] Political speech in our national parks is a proud tradition, and the federal government has no place in attempting to curb speech by creating “zones” where it is acceptable or unacceptable to speak.
In our travels through the park, we encountered a number of violations of this sign, including Jehovah’s Witnesses with displays who were handing out tracts about their faith, the National Park Service’s signs throughout the park arguing for better environmental protection legislation and lauding past EPA efforts, and a small child protesting to her mother that she was done with her sack lunch (most of her sandwich was still uneaten). From the loftiest sentiments (those about religion) to the most trivial (private disputes between mother and child), all of these are speech protected by the First Amendment from government abridgment, and all of them are presumably prohibited by the sign at the visitors’ centers.[6]
I have no reason to believe any enforcement action has been taken against groups or individuals based on these signs. Nor do I harbor any suspicion that you personally authorized these signs. Rather, like so many things, our liberties are slowly eroded by the well-meant actions of individuals attempting to prevent pesky protestors from marring natural beauty or causing disruption. But protests and political speech do not mar natural beauty as quickly as oppression. I hope you will not think I overstate my case with the word “oppression”—rather, the attempts of government to snip at the fringes of free speech are always the first signs of the erosion of natural liberty. The American people are free to speak and advocate for their beliefs on government property, and these signs should come down.
With great respect and appreciation, I write to request that you remove these signs from all National Parks and any other similar government-owned properties where they may be found.
[1] The visitor’s center we visited was Sugarlands Visitors’ Centers, where we encountered very kind and helpful rangers and other workers.
[2] The caselaw on this point is voluminous, but one example should suffice: Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
[3] Id.
[4] I was unable to ascertain whether these signs are present at all visitors’ centers in the Smokies, or at all parks nationally, or whether this one visitors’ center was an anomaly. I presume that they are present nationally, but my argument is not affected if this visitors’ center is the only example.
[5] Both silent footage and text of the speech survive. The footage can be viewed on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnJbJbcr3jw. The text of the speech is also available: “Address at Dedication of Great Smoky Mountains National Park.,” by Franklin D. Roosevelt, September 2, 1940. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16002.
[6] Political t-shirts, personal conversations, bumper stickers on cars and license plate messages, and “pillow talk” while camping under the stars are all presumably prohibited by the sign, as well.
National Park “First Amendment” Signs Should Come Down
/3 Comments/in First Amendment /by Cornerstone LawLast week, after observing signs in National Parks purporting to limit the exercise of the First Amendment, Attorney Joel Ready sent the following letter to Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Department of Interior, and to Michael Reynolds, the director of the National Park Service.
Dear Sec. Zinke:
At the end of August, I honeymooned with my wife in the Smoky Mountains National Park. The Smokies are a sort of home away from home for my family. I spent many summer weeks there growing up, and of course, my wife and I now have wonderful memories of the park as well. The park has earned its place as the most visited park in America, with its lush beauty and unique wildlife. We had the opportunity to quietly observe two black bears while we were there, as well as to visit Clingman’s Dome and Cades Cove, among other sites.
However, I write to let you know of a concern I had while visiting the Smokies. During our trip, we stopped at one of the visitors’ centers,[1] where we were confronted by [the sign pictured above].
As you are probably aware, Mr. Secretary, the First Amendment cannot be confined to a small portion of government-owned ground. The First Amendment is designed to prevent the “abridgment” of speech, no matter where it occurs. Nowhere is this protection stronger than on government property. While the government is free to engage in reasonable “time, place and manner restrictions,” such restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly-tailored to advance a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.[2] Parks are “quintessential public forums [where] the government may not prohibit all communicative activity.”[3] I believe that no compelling government interest is at play here, and that these zones in front of visitors’ centers[4] (making up only a fraction of a percent of the total park) do not constitute a “narrowly-tailored” solution in any event.
The Smoky Mountains National Park, like our nation, was born in the cauldron of political dissent and protest. When the federal government used the powers of eminent domain to seize the land in the 1920s and ‘30s, a number of evicted local families protested in different ways, including protesting FDR’s speech in the park (which was, of course, full of political statements, as any Presidential speech would be).[5] Political speech in our national parks is a proud tradition, and the federal government has no place in attempting to curb speech by creating “zones” where it is acceptable or unacceptable to speak.
In our travels through the park, we encountered a number of violations of this sign, including Jehovah’s Witnesses with displays who were handing out tracts about their faith, the National Park Service’s signs throughout the park arguing for better environmental protection legislation and lauding past EPA efforts, and a small child protesting to her mother that she was done with her sack lunch (most of her sandwich was still uneaten). From the loftiest sentiments (those about religion) to the most trivial (private disputes between mother and child), all of these are speech protected by the First Amendment from government abridgment, and all of them are presumably prohibited by the sign at the visitors’ centers.[6]
I have no reason to believe any enforcement action has been taken against groups or individuals based on these signs. Nor do I harbor any suspicion that you personally authorized these signs. Rather, like so many things, our liberties are slowly eroded by the well-meant actions of individuals attempting to prevent pesky protestors from marring natural beauty or causing disruption. But protests and political speech do not mar natural beauty as quickly as oppression. I hope you will not think I overstate my case with the word “oppression”—rather, the attempts of government to snip at the fringes of free speech are always the first signs of the erosion of natural liberty. The American people are free to speak and advocate for their beliefs on government property, and these signs should come down.
With great respect and appreciation, I write to request that you remove these signs from all National Parks and any other similar government-owned properties where they may be found.
[1] The visitor’s center we visited was Sugarlands Visitors’ Centers, where we encountered very kind and helpful rangers and other workers.
[2] The caselaw on this point is voluminous, but one example should suffice: Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
[3] Id.
[4] I was unable to ascertain whether these signs are present at all visitors’ centers in the Smokies, or at all parks nationally, or whether this one visitors’ center was an anomaly. I presume that they are present nationally, but my argument is not affected if this visitors’ center is the only example.
[5] Both silent footage and text of the speech survive. The footage can be viewed on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnJbJbcr3jw. The text of the speech is also available: “Address at Dedication of Great Smoky Mountains National Park.,” by Franklin D. Roosevelt, September 2, 1940. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16002.
[6] Political t-shirts, personal conversations, bumper stickers on cars and license plate messages, and “pillow talk” while camping under the stars are all presumably prohibited by the sign, as well.
Film the Police
/in First Amendment, Law Enforcement /by Cornerstone LawFilming the police has become an act of political speech. Police actions caught on camera have played an enormous role in debates over police brutality and practices over the last twenty years, most infamously in the case of Rodney King. In the wake of such landmark events, many cities and police departments have tried to crack down on and prevent the filming of police actions. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, released yesterday by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the Federal Court that governs Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware), the court ruled that the First Amendment protects your right to film the police as they do their job, and that a city may not prohibit such filming or photographing of police actions, because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your right to film and photograph the police.
The Camera as Eyewitness
In a beautifully-written opinion, the court ruled that you have the right to record even run-of-the-mill police encounters, because one never knows when a shot might be important. The First Amendment gives you the right to preserve an eyewitness account of what you’re seeing, even if you’re not sure that you’ll ever use that footage.
Footage Need not be “Expressive”
The court rejected the contention that the individuals caught filming the police had to prove that they were creating some sort of expressive art protected by the First Amendment. The very act of filming was the protected conduct.
This aspect of the ruling—that you don’t have to prove the artistic value or expressive nature of your footage or picture for it to be protected by the First Amendment—will have broad application in other contexts. Students who film a teacher’s interaction with them at school, footage of a DMV official rejecting an applicant on dubious grounds and even pictures taken on the street of public events are all constitutionally protected, even if it is unclear at the time how such media may be used. This right extends to the private citizen in equal force as it does to the press.
A few exceptions
The court left open the possibility that there are limits to the time, place and manner in which you can film the police. Recording a police officer’s conversation with a private informant, getting in an officer’s way or otherwise interfering with police activity might be unprotected conduct which could properly lead to an arrest.
But the court left these possible exceptions general, and the most important ruling in this case will be that you have a right to record your public servants as they go about their jobs or interact with you and others. You have a right to film the police.
Pick up Your Phone
So keep your phone out when you run into the police, or when you see others interacting with them. Allowing the public the opportunity to see how police work is done is an important part of making our justice system better, and of advocating for a better society. The First Amendment protects your right to do just that.
Police Dashboard Camera Videos Must Be Released
/in First Amendment, Law Enforcement /by Cornerstone LawPolice dashboard camera videos are available to the public pursuant to Right to Know requests in Pennsylvania, says the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The ruling in Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, which came down Tuesday, affirms that Motor Vehicle Recordings (MVRs) are subject to disclosure unless specific content is proven to be confidential.
Unfortunately, this is not the law in all states, and even here in Pennsylvania, the state legislature is taking steps to expand police power to protect videos from disclosure. Yet, as we’ve seen in the Philando Castile case and others, footage capturing officers in crucial moments of fatal encounters can sometimes be the only witness against an officer’s word. Such footage can go viral and have a tremendous impact on the public’s perceptions of law enforcement.
Yesterday, Cornerstone Law’s Attorney Ready was asked to comment on this case for 69 News out of Allentown. You can watch the interview here.
Does the First Amendment Give You the Right to Record Police?
Another case coming from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will have significant implications on how we monitor police. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, the Federal Court is called upon to decide whether the First Amendment allows the City of Philadelphia to prohibit the recording of police while they perform their jobs.
The simple fact is that while we need police as a society, police are an extension of government power–and where there is power, there will always be corruption. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Giving our government absolute power to determine what information can be released, or who can record the government’s actions is corruption. Monitoring our government is a right inherent to our republic, and must be preserved.
Contracts Promote Business
/in Contracts /by Cornerstone LawContracts are the fabric of society. Contracts promote business by clarifying parties’ expectations and facilitating better working relationships. They hold us together, allowing commerce to go forward quickly and securely, and allow the conscientious businessman a remedy when a business partner goes back on his word. But contracts are often frustrating to the business owner precisely because of their importance. When presented with a contract and all its glorious fine print, most people glaze over (seriously, when was the last time you read your iTunes’ user agreement?).
We have a gentlemen’s agreement
One mistake many people make is assuming that a “gentlemen’s agreement” will suffice for their business. “I was raised to honor my word,” I’ve heard many clients say after they were burned by someone who never put their commitment in writing.
The problem with such oral agreements is two-fold. First, as the old joke goes, oral agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Just because you were raised to honor your commitments doesn’t mean the other guy was. And second, even where both parties are honest, written contracts force both parties to think about scenarios they might not otherwise consider.
For example, let’s say that you are a famous orange-grower, and I would like to buy and re-sell your delicious, name-brand oranges. We agree that you will sell me 1,000 oranges at $1 a piece. We shake hands, and we have a deal, right? Well, yes, we do, but do we really know what our deal is? Am I picking up the oranges, or are you paying to have them delivered? Does it matter if this year’s orange crop came in smaller than last year’s? Do I have to pay on delivery or after I re-sell, and do you care if I pay with a credit card? Most of all, what if you had a bad year and sell me your neighbor’s oranges? I bargained for your name-brand oranges, not some neighbor’s knock-off citrus!
I think you get the point. Sitting down and writing out an agreement does not eliminate the possibility for misunderstanding, but it helps to bring into focus the various things that can go wrong in a business deal, and allows the parties to allocate the risk of various possibilities.
What should a good contract have in it?
Obviously, a contract should be as unique as the deal it governs. It’s always frustrating to see form contracts copied and pasted from one thing to another, as though a business deal is just a cut and paste job. Nonetheless, certain provisions should probably be in your contract.
What happens if the crop you’re buying—or the product you’re depending on the production of—is unavailable because of famine, war or strike? You can laugh, but this happens all the time. What if the other party dies tragically during the term of the contract? Is his estate responsible for completing the contract?
This might seem unnecessary in a deal between two local businesses, especially in a place like Berks County. But what if the other party to your contract moves to Montana, and the deal breaks down at some point? Can you sue him in Reading, Pennsylvania? That depends on a number of factors, believe it or not, but if you’ve written that into the contract, the answer will almost certainly be yes.
If you mess up, what happens? Does the contract dissolve? Is there a stated financial penalty? Does it depend on the damage done to the deal? This part of a contract is governed by a fairly complex thicket of Constitutional law and public policy legislated both through our General Assembly and our courts. Understanding how these remedies will be enforced (or whether a court will refuse to enforce the remedy the parties wrote into the contract) is vital to creating a strong document to govern your transaction.
Sounds obvious, right? But how are you getting paid (or making payment)? Does it matter if it’s in cash, or will you take a line of credit? Will you allow a grace period if a payment doesn’t get in on time? If so, what interest rate are you agreeing to? Who’s delivering? To where? If weather interferes, is delayed delivery excused?
Conclusion
A contract is the lifeblood of a good business deal. It is crucial to have a well-drafted document that covers the contingencies that can arise. As the old saying goes, “Measure twice; cut once.” A well-written contract can lead to a much more amiable relationship between the parties when unexpected difficulties arise, and can lead to more and better business in the future. Do you need contracts to cover your business? Contact the Cornerstone Law Firm today, and let us see how we can help you.