I visited Muir Woods in California today - obviously a stunningly beautiful place. But the most interesting part of the visit was a sign designating a particular area as a place to exercise first amendment rights, which is nice I suppose. Good to get a reminder of that delightful little amendment. But it begs the question - don't we get to exercise our first amendment rights on all public property? Or is Muir Woods not public property? Also, has the been some sort of issue where people really needed to exercise their first amendment rights outside of Muir Woods? It's not a really traversed area. I'm trying to remember property law and those cases about malls and first amendment rights, but it's late, and I'm in a different time zone. So I'm just going to leave the questions out there.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
I demand to be heard!!
Posted by (In)Sanity Gal at Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Labels: beautiful places, the law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes, Muir Woods is public property, as of 1908. I'm not sure why they would need the restriction, but a content-neutral time, place, and manner First Amendment restriction is totally fair. I would guess that they didn't want anyone following Julia Butterfly Hill's example and sitting in a tree for a couple years. (Although no one is threatening to log Muir Woods, so who would do that? I guess they're just aware that California is full of crazy hippies. Can't ever know what they'll do!)
Did you also know that Muir Woods was home to the first same-sex marriage ceremony in a national park? True, true!
How I love California.
What a beautiful place to get married!
And thanks for the info, fellow student!
Post a Comment