Opinion: Door-to-door soliciting is a right

There is nothing more fundamental about this country than the right to speak without the government's permission. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld that principle by striking down a village ordinance in Ohio that required anyone going door-to-door to obtain and carry an official permit. The case was brought by the religious ministry, Jehovah's Witnesses, but the 8-to-1 decision was a solid victory for all who value the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

The small town of Stratton, Ohio, imposed the law ostensibly to protect its 300 residents from flimflam artists. But the court found the law so broadly written it would apply to almost anyone who rallied around a religious, political or neighborhood concern. People going door-to-door were required to obtain a permit from the mayor, and to show it if asked to by homeowners or the police. Village leaders said they wanted to curb fraud and crime and spare residents the annoyance of unwanted visitors.

There are legitimate ways the government can regulate commercial solicitations, and the government obviously has an obligation to protect public safety and privacy rights. But these weren't the issues involved here. The ordinance applied both to commercial and noncommercial causes. For example, residents who wanted to circulate a petition asking the city to do something about loose dogs in the neighborhood would have to disclose in advance their name and address and details about who they planned to target and why.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens held that any practical excuse for the permit is outweighed by the burden it imposes on free speech. "It is offensive," he wrote, "to the very notion of a free society that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." If a resident didn't want to be bothered at home, he could shut the door, walk away, or post "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" signs.

The broad nature of the ordinance spared the court from having to delve too deeply into an important religious issue. The Jehovah's Witnesses, who proselytize as part of their faith, didn't apply for a permit, for they believe their authority to preach is derived from the Bible, not municipal authorities. The majority cited other Supreme Court rulings going back to World War II in favor of the nonconformist Jehovah's Witnesses -- who refuse to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- that have shaped important First Amendment principles.

"Efforts of the Jehovah's Witnesses to resist speech regulation have not been a struggle for their rights alone," Stevens wrote. "Door-to-door distribution of circulars is essential to the poorly financed causes of little people."

Meanwhile, people who are annoyed by door-to-door canvassers can exercise their right to just slam the door.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page