« Ind. Courts - Continuing with "Judicial candidate's registration in question" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 14 NFP) »
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Ind. Courts - "Both sides claim free speech rights in battle over sex shop"
The ILB has had at least a dozen entries on Spencer County's court battles to restrict an adult business, 231 Adult Plaza.
Today Francesca Jarosz of the Indianapolis Star reports on efforts by 24-hour per day protesters in Jackson County, against the Lion's Den, an adult superstore in Uniontown. Some quotes from the lengthy story:
The idea: to potentially embarrass anyone who walks into the Lion's Den, an adult sex shop off I-65 in this rural Jackson County town 80 miles south of Indianapolis.Their ultimate aim, though, is to shut the store down.
It is a conflict that has dragged on for nearly three years, pitting residents of this sparsely populated farming area against the Ohio-based corporate owners of a chain of about 30 Lion's Dens. * * *
Like other such fights, zoning laws are part of the equation. But an even bigger legal issue is present: the First Amendment rights that both sides claim as their own.
While the lawyers fight it out, the more visible battle is being waged a stone's throw from the interstate exit. Every hour of every day since the Lion's Den -- a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week business -- opened here in August 2005, Gillaspy, Howard or someone else in their group of Christian activists and others has maintained the parking lot vigil.
Their organization, called Jackson County Watchdog, has set up on an abutting plot of county-owned land where its wooden shed -- with its towering cross -- provides members shelter and where signs offer free Bibles and warn drivers that they enter the store at the risk of being exposed online at www.war-line.org. * * *
Late last month, the fed-up owners of the Lion's Den filed a lawsuit against Jackson County and some of its officials. In the suit, the owners note that the shed set up by the protesters on county land was erected without a permit, and yet the county refuses to do anything about it.
And that, they contend, is a clear indication that the county is showing favoritism to the protesters -- in violation of the Lion's Den's constitutional rights.
The store further claims the protesters' actions have cost it $300,000 in lost business over a six-month period. The next step is for the county to formally respond to the suit, which should happen within six weeks.
The suit creates a free-speech riddle that more than one First Amendment expert said would make a challenging law-school exam question:
Does the privilege lie with the store owners, who say the county should protect the Lion's Den's right to do business without subjecting its customers to the harassment posed by the protesters, or with its opponents, who say the county should protect their right to protest?
"The First Amendment seems to cut both ways here," said Neil Richards, a law professor who specializes in privacy and First Amendment issues at Washington University in St. Louis. "The business has a pretty good claim they're being discriminated against because the county doesn't like their message. On the other hand, one of the great red flags is the use of . . . laws (like the zoning ordinances) to punish people because they don't like their message."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 29, 2008 08:50 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts