$158 fine for distributing religious tracts?

A Wisconsin law that resulted in a woman being fined $158 for distributing a religious leaflet has been ruled an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that the city of Milwaukee’s ban against distributing informational leaflets by placing them on the windshields of cars is unconstitutional. The ruling stems from a case in which Rosemary Deida was fined $158 Dec. 20, 2000, for placing religious leaflets on car windshields.

Deida paid the fine but filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming her right to free speech had been violated.

According to Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel for The Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Fl.-based civil liberties group, city officials fashioned Milwaukee’s law after a Wisconsin state law that prohibits the placement or distribution of literature in or on a vehicle, even if the occupant of the vehicle is willing to accept the literature.

Staver and co-counsel Erik Stanley represented Deida.

“Last year, a federal appeals court ruled four similar ordinances in Arkansas unconstitutional because the ordinances were overbroad,” said Staver. “The ordinances in the Arkansas case were ruled unconstitutional even though they did not apply to a situation where the occupant was willing to receive the literature.”

Staver explained that the Milwaukee law is so broad that it prohibits a person standing at a stoplight who wants to distribute newspapers to occupants of vehicles who are willing to receive the paper. The ordinance also prohibits the handing of a business card to an occupant willing to receive the card.

Judge Adelman wrote that the law was content-based because it allows the distribution of certain literature approved by the state regarding handicapped parking. The ruling also noted that an officer must inspect the literature to determine if it is permissible.

The court said it found that the law was viewpoint-based because it allowed only the state’s viewpoint on certain issues, and that “even if the law were not content- or viewpoint-based, it was still unconstitutional, because it prohibited more speech than necessary to achieve the government’s interests,” said Staver.

“The state law and city ordinance flattens the First Amendment like a
steamroller,” he said. “While an occupant of a vehicle can choose not to accept literature, the government cannot impose a flat ban on the distribution of literature to an occupant who is willing to receive the information.”

Asked if he believed the city would appeal, as its attorney promised, Staver said no.

“I don’t think they’ll have a strong chance on appeal,” he told WND. “The judge analyzed the law in a lot of different ways and gave a lot of alternative reasons to support his ruling.”

“This is only the second case of its kind in the country,” Staver said, adding he was happy with the ruling.