The next Waco?

[MajGenl.Meade]

neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors' business

I am somewhat baffled at the above as having anything to do with "Thomas Jefferson's ideal of Rightful Liberty".

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson

Thus, with a political philosophy based on respect for the equal rights of all, Jefferson rises to higher ground than either Montesquieu with his view centered on the authority and orderliness of the state, or the anarchists with their view centered on the authority and independence of the individual. Each individual in Jefferson's world is a social being with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each joins with others to work together in order better to fulfill their mutual needs and aspirations.

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco07.htm

It should be self-evident that working together to fulfill mutual needs and aspirations very much requires having a nose in each others' business. Similarly, if society is to have laws (not of a tyrant's whim but of mutual protection of individual rights) then my neighbour's "business" must be examinable to determine whether or not it violates the equal rights of others - starting with those of his/her spouse and/or children.

I think J G Ballard had something to say about this somewhere

Meade

[Sue U]

I do not see how this has anything to do with "denying free speech in toto". These people do not need "to open public space to speech they might not like," because there is no public -- actually or ostensibly public -- place for them to open.

I disagree. The development includes the "John Parker Green," an amphitheater, a farmers market, a "Firearms Museum and Reflecting Pool" and a "Town Center." These would all clearly function as public spaces in the community. And even "private" property may be required to yield to free speech activity; there is a line of cases regarding leafleting, demonstrations, etc. at company towns, shopping malls and retail business plazas that establishes the principle -- although sometimes under state law rationales, as it is undisputed that states have the right to regulate uses of property (I don't have the case law handy, but that's what I recall; there is undoubtedly some kind of "three-part test" to determine the issue).

I think "gated communities" are qualitatively different, as they are generally smaller, circumscribed areas within a broader municipal division that provides public spaces. But in this case, the Citadel seeks to be the entirety of the municipal structure and to prevent the free flow of ideas and information that is the entire foundation of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Moreover, there are limits to the freedom to form a community of the weird. See, e.g., the litigation surrounding "Kiryas Joel" in New York, which properly should be disbanded as a living, breathing violation of the Establishment Clause.

You apparently believe that you have the right to blare "the collected speeches of Eugene Debs through a bullhorn" in what amounts to a private community's living room.

Of course I believe no such thing, because I believe that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions can be placed on speech without being an affront to free speech rights. But allowing no dissenting view to be heard at all is anathema to this country's core principles.

[liberty]

It is planned to be a comprehensive community with residential, commercial and ostensibly public spaces.

"Ostensibly" how? They evidently say that their privately owned space will be quite explicitly non-public:

The community will be protected by a perimeter wall that will be inaccessible to "tourists."

I do not see how this has anything to do with "denying free speech in toto". These people do not need "to open public space to speech they might not like," because there is no public -- actually or ostensibly public -- place for them to open.

There are gated communities which contain parks, playgrounds, golf courses, restaurants, stores, etc. I have no right to enter any such gated community at all. So how can I have any right to engage in "free speech" in a place where I have no right even to be?

These people are, in my estimation, weird. But part of freedom in America is the right to be weird. And that includes the right to form a community of the weird. And the right to enforce the rules of the weird upon people who freely choose to join the community of the weird.

Obviously, people who freely choose to join the community of the weird retain the right to change their minds. But unless the community of the weird tries to coerce (as distinct from persuade) people not to leave, I do not see the problem.

I am an agnostic. I am a fervent believer in the freedom of speech. But I do not believe that my freedom of speech entitles me to declaim the (self-evident) virtues of agnosticism inside a Roman Catholic Church or a Mormon Temple or a Jewish Synagogue or a Muslim Mosque, etc. (Please pardon the redundant phrasings.)

If some hippie commune -- even a self-contained commune (grows its own food, digs its own wells, etc.) -- decides not to permit open-air readings of the works of Ayn Rand within its privately owned space, what is the basis for any complaint? If one is really desperate to spew Randiansim to the world at large, there is, well, a world at large in which one is free to do so.

You apparently believe that you have the right to blare "the collected speeches of Eugene Debs through a bullhorn" in what amounts to a private community's living room. I do not.

Andrew is right these people have the same rights as everyone else. If they want to establish a conservative utopia more power to them. However it is an old idea that has failed in the past and will most likely fail again unless it turns out to be some kind of European ghetto, refuge or reservation from a world of high crime. In a world where the ordinary person is not allowed to have the means to protect one’s self it would be one way to provide security. Apparently as they see it the liberal world is the world of crime; keep out liberals out and keep out crime.

[Andrew D]

And even "private" property may be required to yield to free speech activity; there is a line of cases regarding leafleting, demonstrations, etc. at company towns, shopping malls and retail business plazas that establishes the principle ....

In the seminal case about company towns, "the [company] town and its shopping district [were] accessible to and freely used by the public in general, and there [was] nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belong[ed] to a private corporation." (Marsh v. Alabama (1946) 326 U.S. 501, 503.) The Citadel will not be accessible to or freely used by the general public.

The Supreme Court has held that anti-war protesters have no constitutional right to distribute handbills inside a privately owned shopping mall. It has also held that striking warehouse workers and union employees have no constitutional right to picket their employer's retail store inside a privately owned shopping mall. (See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972) 407 U.S. 551 and Hudgens v. NLRB (1976) 424 U.S. 507.)

Some States have interpreted their own constitutions as providing greater free-speech rights in such circumstances than are guaranteed by the US Constitution. The Supreme Court of California, for example, has held that a group has a State constitutional right to solicit support for a UN resolution against "Zionism" inside a privately owned shopping center, even though the shopping center had even-handedly enforced a prohibition of, among other things, the circulation of petitions not directly related to the shopping center's commercial purposes.

Again, however, that case -- Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899 -- involved a shopping center which was open to the general public. ("As a result of advertising and the lure of a congenial environment, 25,000 persons [were] induced to congregate daily to take advantage of the numerous amenities offered by" the shopping center. (23 Cal.3d at 910-911.))

It appears that the Citadel's "commercial and ostensibly public spaces" will not, in fact, be public at all. On the contrary, the Citadel "will be protected by a perimeter wall that will be inaccessible to 'tourists.'"

As far as I know, Idaho has not interpreted its own constitution as providing greater free-speech rights in such circumstances than are guaranteed by the US Constitution. Absent any such interpretation of Idaho's constitution, I do not see any basis for holding that anyone has any right to engage in any expressive activity inside the Citadel which the Citadel has prohibited.

In sum, it seems to me that your suggested test case would have no leg to stand on.