Appeals court ruling favors street preachers

PORTLAND -- As of Jan. 10, all local street preachers and witnesses have a lot more freedom. So say four preachers following a ruling on that date by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case where they had been prohibited from freely preaching and passing out tracts at the “commons” area around Portland’s Rose Quarter.

The four are Daniel Lee, Michael Carr, Edward Gathright and Jeremy Sonnier.

In 1999, preachers were subject to arrest or ejection if they stepped out of three 10-foot by 10-foot “free speech zones” in the 100,000 square-foot plaza owned by the city government and adjacent to the Rose Garden arena.

The city government had allowed Oregon Arena Corporation, the private firm that manages the arena and Memorial Coliseum, to write its own “free speech” rules for the area. The four preachers contended thatmade it difficult for them to reach their target audience.

Northwest attorney Spencer Neal represented the four as the case went to trial in the federal district court of Oregon. Neal is particularly experienced in civil rights cases, according to Paul deParrie of Portland, another local preacher and activist.

In that court, Judge Owen Panner determined that Oregon Arena Corporation was not a “state actor” under the legal definition required under the law for federal civil rights lawsuits The suit was dismissed.

The preachers appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court, where Beaverton attorney Herbert Grey, also des-cribed by deParrie as being well experienced in such appeals, took up their case.

The court ruled on Jan. 10 that the city-owned commons are a “public forum” like a public park, and that any rules concerning speech must be of the same type as would be allowed in a park -- that is, very limited rules.

The court reversed Panner’s decision that Oregon Arena Corporation was not a “state actor.” They reasoned that it is normally a government function to make speech rules for such public settings, so the actions of the corporation when they drafted the rules was a “government action.”

In its decision,, the appeals court found that the corporation may still “impose reasonable restrictions” on the time, place or manner of protected speech within the commons. It left up to the district court to determine whether any or all of the corporation’s free speech policies and procedures are indeed reasonable.

The Jan. 10 decision was the second court ruling in recent months to favor Lee. Last Oct. 31, a state appeals court ruled that he was wrongly convicted of disorderly conduct in connection with an incident in Eugene and should not have been fined $100 two years ago. The court found that the religious opinions expressed by Lee while preaching at the Eugene Mall in April 1999, although upsetting to some listeners, were nonetheless protected under free speech provisions.

Meanwhile, deParrie has been occupied with a separate legal battle with the city government regarding his preaching at Pioneer Courthouse Square downtown.

Last Oct. 31, U.S. District Court Judge Ancer Haggerty struck down as unconstitutional an exclusion order by the city that banned deParrie from the city’s parks.

According to the Mississippi-based American Family Association’s Center for Law and Policy, which assisted in deParrie’s defense, deParrie had been ordered to stay out of the parks for 30 days because of the controversial message he presented at the square. DeParrie’s silent message is a 4x5 foot poster depicting an aborted baby under the headline “Why should God bless America?”

Grey also represented deParrie, Gray and the AFA Center for Law and Policy were brought together by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which underwrote litigation costs.

At a hearing on Nov. 27, deParrie’s attorneys asked the court for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the ordinance against deParrie for the duration of the legal battle. However, the city’s attorney promised in open court that no such action by the city would take place.

“The city agreed, pending the outcome of the case, to stop trying to toss me out of Pioneer Courthouse Square,” said deParrie.

With that assurance, Haggerty decided that the injunction was unnecessary.

“I’m satisified,” said deParrie. “The prospects for a permanent injunction after the case goes to trial look good. The recent decision at the Ninth Circuit Court will help greatly.”