|
''Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence'', 468 U.S. 288 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the National Park Service's regulation which specifically prohibited sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall. The (Community for Creative Non-Violence ) (CCNV) group had planned to hold a demonstration on the National Mall and Lafayette Park where they would erect tent cities to raise awareness of the situation of the homeless. The group obtained the correct permits for a seven-day demonstration starting on the first day of winter. The Park Service however denied the request that participants be able to sleep in the tents. The CCNV challenged this regulation on the basis that it violated their First Amendment right.〔 == Background == The Community for Creative Non-Violence is a group based in Washington D.C. with a mission "to ensure that the rights of the homeless and poor are not infringed upon and that every person has access to life's basic essentials -- food, shelter, clothing and medical care". Since 1978 the group served a Thanksgiving meal for the homeless in Washington D.C. By November 26, 1981 the group had changed locations of the gathering and ended up in Lafayette Park near the White House. The event gained media attention as the poor were eating a warm meal with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the background. In addition to the feast a few members set up ten tents in the form of a village. The group proclaimed “Welcome to Reaganville / Population growing daily / Reaganomics at work.” The name references the depression-era “Hoovervilles” that were camps of the homeless. The group stated they would try and continue the protest into the winter. The Park Police stated that the Thanksgiving dinner had a legal permit but that overnight sleeping would not be tolerated. The next day, November, 26th, police removed the homeless from the area. On November 30 the CCNV obtained a one week renewable permit.〔U.S. Dept. of the Interior Public Gathering Permit No. 81-966〕 This permit stated that: "(i)n connection with permitted demonstrations or special events, temporary structures ... shall be permitted”〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/670/1213/118104/ )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://openjurist.org/670/f2d/1213/community-for-creative-non-violence-v-g-watt )〕The permit however did not explicitly state sleeping may occur. On December 17, 1981 the CCNV appealed to the District Court for summary judgment for their complaint and for entry of a permanent injunction.〔 The United States Government motioned to have the case dismissed which was subsequently denied.〔 On December 23 the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of CCNV and stated: “Plaintiffs are entitled to sleep in the nine (9) tents which plaintiffs have placed in Lafayette Park pursuant to a valid permit issued by defendants. Plaintiffs are not entitled to engage in "camping activities," such as the preparation or service of food in Lafayette Park” 〔 The District Court stayed the judgment and injunction pending the Government's appeal to the Court of Appeals.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5421131892327985676&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&as_vis=1 )〕 The United States Government subsequently filed for appeal. The Appeals Court examined the National Park Service's Administrative Policy Statement that stated: “Camping is prohibited in all park areas except those specially designated as official campsites (36 C.F.R. 50.27). The National Park Service does permit the use of symbolic campsites reasonably related to First Amendment activities. However, camping primarily for living accommodation must be confined to designated campsites”〔 The Appeals Court felt that the appellees were clearly engaged in political protest and therefore a “symbolic campsites” and that there was no evidence suggesting that the handful of tents in Lafayette Park was intended "primarily for living accommodation." The Opinion of the Court concluded with: “For the foregoing reasons, we find it clear from the Record before us and from the National Park Service's Administrative Policy Statement that these protesters may lawfully sleep in their symbolic campsite. That conclusion necessarily follows from the National Park Service's interpretation of its own regulations. On this basis, the order of the District Court is Affirmed.” 〔〔 As a result of the court's decision, CCNV successfully staged its demonstration, including sleeping, for approximately seven weeks during the winter of that year. Sometime later the National Park Service revised its camping regulations for the National Capital Region.〔 The new regulations stated: "when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that the participants, in conducting these activities, are in fact using the area as a living accommodation regardless of the intent of the participants or the nature of any other activities in which they may also be engaging."〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17382756549441256375&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&as_vis=1 )〕CCNV planned to hold another demonstration the following winter and was to include 60 tents total with 20 tents in a quadrant of Lafayette Park and 40 tents on the National Mall〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17382756549441256375&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&as_vis=1 )〕 The CCNV filed on September 7, 1982 for a permit. The National Park Service granted a permit "to set up two symbolic campsites, one on the Mall with a maximum of one hundred participants and forty tents, and one in Lafayette Park with approximately fifty participants and twenty tents".〔 The permit granted the ability to have a twenty-four hour presence at the locations but did not allow the participants to sleep. The CCNV then sought a court order invalidating the permit's limitation on sleeping as an unconstitutional restriction on their freedom of expression. They argued that part of the core message the demonstrators wished to convey was that homeless people have no permanent place to sleep. The District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the National Park Service. The Court ruled that:(1) CCNV's demonstration falls within the scope of the amended anti-camping regulations; (2) sleeping, within the context of CCNV's demonstration, falls outside the scope of the first amendment; and (3) even assuming first amendment scrutiny is required, the new anti-camping regulations are constitutional as applied to CCNV's proposed sleeping activities.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/703/586/12396/ )〕 The group appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals where their case was heard.〔〔(【引用サイトリンク】work=United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. )〕 The Appeals Court re-examined the three reasons the District Court did not grant the CCNV injunction. They agreed with the notion that the National Park Service's regulation fit the CCNV's demonstration. Concerning the claim that "CCNV's demonstration, falls outside the scope of the first amendment"〔〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19821883670F2d1213_11682.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985 )〕 the court wrote in the opinion: Indeed, we cannot understand how the government can deny the indicia of political expression that permeate CCNV's pointed use of the simple act of sleeping. The protestors choose to sleep, purposely across from the White House and Capitol grounds, in sparsely appointed tents which the Park Service has already designated as undeniably "symbolic." Their permit application states that this conduct is intended to send the same message as this court recognized was sent in CCNV's 1981-82 demonstration: that the problems of the homeless will not simply disappear into the night〔. In concern with the Lower Courts third assertion that the new anti-camping regulations are constitutional the Appeals Court wrote and summarized their ruling: In sum, the Park Service has failed to demonstrate that the government's interests will be furthered by keeping these putative protestors from the sleeping activity which is the sole point in dispute. We reverse, therefore, because the indiscriminate line the government seeks to draw against sleeping cannot pass first amendment muster. Accordingly, we grant CCNV the injunctive relief it seeks, enjoining the Park Service from prohibiting sleep at CCNV's demonstration.〔 The ruling was subsequently challenged and taken to the Supreme Court.〔〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/clark-v-community-for-creative-non-violence/ )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|