Mt. Rushmore speech rules challenged

Mt. Rushmore

A federal judge's decision that national park law enforcement officers can require Christians to obtain a speech permit before handing out tracts is being challenged by lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund.

The organization has announced is it appealing the ruling from Judge James Robertson in the District of Columbia, who concluded the requirement is appropriate in a case brought by a Minnesota man who was halted from handing out tracts at South Dakota's Mt. Rushmore.

The judge did admit that a rule requiring permits for any "public expression of views" was unconstitutional and struck the rule, but Robertson affirmed the park's regulation as it was applied to handing out Christian literature to willing recipients.

"The First Amendment is our permit to engage in free speech on public property," said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Heather Gebelin Hacker. "It's unbelievable that the National Park Service would deny freedom of speech at our national parks, especially at the foot of Mt. Rushmore, where four men who represent America's freedoms are immortalized."

The situation arose Aug. 9, 2007, when Michael Boardley and several other people handed out gospel tracts near the entrance to the Mt. Rushmore monument – without incident or comment from park rangers.

However, when they returned the next day, "a park ranger approached them and informed them that they had to have a speech permit. Without the permit, they could not distribute the tracts, but it would take two days to obtain one," the ADF reported.

Boardley then returned home and submitted multiple requests for a permit, but the Park Service did not grant the request "until after ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit."

Earlier this year, Robertson ruled against one of the regulations as a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. But the ADF appealed his affirmation that "even individuals must obtain a permit in advance before they engaged in speech in designated areas of national parks."

"The government cannot require small groups and individuals to obtain a permit before exercising their constitutional rights," said Hacker. "It is our hope that this appeal will restore free speech and religious freedom not just for Mr. Boardley, but for others visiting national parks and monuments as well."

Hacker told WND such regulations are not the least intrusive ways of maintaining order in parks.

"These parks are public property, they are public forums. The Supreme Court held for many years if the government is regulation fundamental speech in a public forum, it has to be narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest," she said.

She said an individual or a couple of people passing out tracts in a park or speaking their mind about a certain topic doesn't impact government interests.

"There's really no justification for a permit requirement, especially in this case," she said.

The judge essentially said Boardley could go somewhere else to hand out tracts.

"Boardley 'hands out
gospel tracts in public areas because of his sincerely held
religious beliefs concerning Christianity,' … but he
does not allege that he must distribute his gospel tracts at the
United States national parks," Robertson wrote.

He also suggested national parks should not be marred by such free speech activities.

"Unlike people walking in the city center or entering

the subway, visitors to a national park expect a peaceful and
tranquil environment, and the government has a legitimate
interest in providing that experience to them. Even a small
demonstration, or a lone pamphleteer, can disrupt that
experience, particularly in some of the smaller parks," the judge wrote.