From Deseret News archives:

Capitol protest rules reviewed

Lawyer wants to see free speech protected

Published: Monday, April 7, 2008 12:18 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Now, his latest lawsuit seeks similar damages — but even more importantly, Barnard said, Utah's state political leaders "should not come up with crazy rules that make no sense."

Barnard went to court just before the 2008 Legislature ended after troopers told two animal rights advocates they couldn't hold up poster-size protest signs outside of the third-floor House Chamber. They could pass out leaflets, but not hold up the placards because the placards amounted to a demonstration, the troopers said.

Wrong, said Judge Campbell, who issued an order saying that the protesters could hold up the signs. That order expired when lawmakers adjourned, which could lead to another court battle in the 2009 Legislature.

Now, legislative leaders need to adopt "coordinated" rules for the preservation board (which oversees the grounds and certain parts of the Capitol) and the Legislature (which handles rules in and around the legislative space in the Capitol), said Curtis.

Curtis complained that Barnard is making a "cottage industry" of suing the state over free-speech issues. After the new rules are adopted, Curtis said he wouldn't be surprised if Barnard "gets some of his clients" to again protest outside of those rules, and then sue in federal court, seeking a small award for his clients and attorney fees for himself.

Story continues below
"This very well may be an ongoing issue, so we should adopt the best rules we can now," Curtis said.

Barnard said the Legislature and preservation board have adopted foolish free-speech rules that make little sense. "It is like they don't want any free speech on the third floor" where the Senate and House chambers are and where lobbyists and others gather outside in the hallways to talk to legislators.

There is no good reason that "spontaneous demonstrations" cannot be held there as well, Barnard said. Stopping "two people shouting" slogans near the third-floor chambers is a clear violation of their constitutional free-speech rights.

Curtis said there are good reasons, such as if crowds become too large and if noisy demonstrations disrupt the floor and committee work of legislators.

"Is it five people (demonstrating) or 500? It can make a difference," Curtis said.

But the speaker promised that no matter what the size of the group, outside protests should be allowed as they have been in the past.


E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com

Recent comments

Our Elect Officials will ignore us anyhow, except if we cough up the...

It doesn't matter | April 7, 2008 at 3:02 p.m.

Lets do like NYC and have Designated protest area's, Like the...

Anonymous | April 7, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.

Silly Bob G, the difference is lobbyists come bearing gifts and...

To: Bob G | April 7, 2008 at 9:29 a.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Gay-friendly curriculum phased out

To Trevor | 1:48 p.m. Protests and boycotts CAN be bullying. Especially...

Unga might enter NFL draft

Do it, BYU isn't going anywhere

Boys basketball rankings

Well we won't get SS on our home floor, but we do next week in Kanab. Too bad...

Phoenix temple inspires thanks

To Jayeg, I would have no problem if a Muslim mosque was built on the...

Casual sex not always bad for health?

The study has the same validity as the survey of skydivers who have just...

...remember SynCrete?

Texas preps strike Nike deal

Texas has more high schools than any other state in the union...great deal...

Just wait, come tourney time we will bust it out and will dominate!!!

Letters: Modest tax hike needed

Anonymous | 7:11 a.m. Exactly WHAT services do you want that we don't...

Do you want them to look the other way when they come across a law being broken?

Advertisements