MCLU Hails Victory in Augusta Free-Speech Case
Court Rules Free Speech “Commands this Court’s Protection”

Thursday, December 22, 2005
CONTACT:     David Webbert, Johnson and Webbert, 207-623-5110
                        Shenna Bellows, MCLU, 207-776-5404
                        Zachary Heiden, MCLU, 207-774-5444
                       
PORTLAND – This afternoon, Bangor U.S. District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., issued an order striking down Augusta’s restrictions on the rights of peaceful protesters to march and gather in the state capital, holding that protesting “commands this Court’s protection.” 
           
            The MCLU challenged the City of Augusta’s policy of selectively imposing fees on marchers and protesters in March 2004.  David Webbert, a civil rights attorney in the Augusta firm of Johnson & Webbert, LLP, acted as MCLU Cooperating Counsel in this matter, successfully arguing the case before Judge Woodcock in June.  Webbert hailed the decision as a landmark ruling upholding the free speech rights of average Americans: “At a time when the super-rich seem to control our government, Judge Woodcock eloquently reminds us that we are a country where everyone, regardless of wealth, has a right to be heard on the important issues of the day.” 

            The case was brought by Timothy Sullivan of Castine, one of the organizers of the March 21, 2004 “March For Truth” in Augusta, which promoted peace, end to war, universal health care, and benefits for military families.  Mr. Sullivan was charged almost $2000 for the permit to hold the march.  Larry Dansinger also joined the MCLU lawsuit, after he tried to  hold a march for worker’s rights in the  fall of 2004, but he was stopped by the enormous cost of the permit.

             “There should be no cost associated with free speech,” said Zachary Heiden, Staff Attorney at the MCLU and co-counsel for the plaintiffs.  “All people in Maine should have the right to express their views in the state’s capital, regardless of their political affiliations or their ability to pay.”

            The MCLU originally filed this case, Sullivan et al. v. City of Augusta, in March 2004, requesting a temporary restraining order against Augusta’s permit policy.  At that time, the Court imposed a partial temporary restraining order, ending Augusta’s policy of requiring marchers to get insurance before holding an event.  Today’s ruling found Augusta’s permit policy unconstitutional, citing evidence that Augusta only imposed fees on certain groups, as well evidence of the extreme cost of fees.

            “To march is to speak,” said Judge John Woodcock in a 51-page opinion.  He went on to say, “A march can be a powerful and effective community expression of ethos: to celebrate our heroes—as on Veteran’s Day; to applaud our commonly-held values—as on July 4th; or, consistent wit this Country’s longest-held traditions, to protest our policies and attempt to effect change—as in Selma or Washington, D.C.”

            The MCLU applauds Judge Woodcock’s ruling.

            “The First Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of those who disagree with government policy to join together and speak out in protest,” said MCLU Executive Director Shenna Bellows.  “The government should not be allowed to use the costs of traffic control as an excuse to suppress the views of those who oppose the war in Iraq.”

            The Court concluding order read as follows:

            “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on Liability Issues Based on a Stipulated Record (Docket # 43) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Judgment is DENIED (Docket # 48). This Court ORDERS the following:

            1. Section 13-5(a) of the Parade Ordinance and Section 3-116(b) of the MOGO violate
            the First Amendment and are unconstitutional to the extent that each requires thirty (30)
            days’ prior notice and a shorter time frame only for “good cause” shown.

            2. Section 13-5(c) of the Parade Ordinance, to the extent that it requires an applicant to
            “meet with the Police Chief to discuss and attempt to agree on the details on the route and
            other logistics”, violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional.

            3. Section 13-5(e) of the Parade Ordinance and Section 3-120 of the MOGO, to the
            extent that there is no provision allowing for a waiver of fees for indigents, violate the
            First Amendment and are unconstitutional. Also, the city’s current method of calculating
            the payment of costs of traffic control and clean up by the applicant violates the First
            Amendment and is unconstitutional.

            4. Section 3-122 of the MOGO, providing an exemption for athletic events “conducted
            by the Board of Education, Little League or other organizations, provided alcohol is not
            available” violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional.”

####