Keister v. Bell

            We often hear about or even see traveling preachers on college campuses, who are trying to spread their religious beliefs amongst college students. However, this can become a tricky legal matter when certain speech might be limited on college campuses. This case focuses on Rodney Keister, a traveling preacher, who is a Christian evangelist. He was preaching on a sidewalk at the University of Alabama, when he was told by public safety at the university that he would need a permit from the University of Alabama to continue preaching his religious messages. More specifically, Keister was walking on a campus sidewalk with a megaphone, while displaying a banner and handing out religious pamphlets. Because of the dismissal by the university and public safety, Keister sued the University of Alabama because he believed his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being infringed in this case. Another important fact in this case is the location because the sidewalks of the University of Alabama are considered a limited public forum. In this case, the limited forum is on a college campus, but other limited public forums could include something like a municipal meeting house. On the other hand, a traditional public forum would be a public park. This is key to the case because the limited public forum requires a university permit, and this must be used for reasonable and viewpoint-neutral speech. The sidewalk on campus is considered a limited public forum, which upon further investigation, under the University’s Grounds Use Policy, says that this applies to everyone engaging in activities or events on campus, except “casual recreational or social activities.” The constitutional question here, is whether the University is infringing upon Keister’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, despite the location of the sidewalk.

              I believe the salient issue here is the issue of what is considered a “limited public forum” and what is forbidden, allowed, and permitted there. It is also important to understand that universities, like the University of Alabama, are state-funded entities that are subject to the First Amendment. However, this doesn’t ensure a private speaker’s right to speak publicly on all public property. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the details of this limited public forum, and if it is a limited public forum and not a traditional public forum. Universities differ from other public fora in many ways, and we can understand this through looking back at Widmar v. Vincent. For example, this case was different because it involved a student group using a space on campus. The goal of universities is to educate, so it would make sense that when using their public facilities, like a sidewalk, use should be consistent with the mission to educate. Another important case to evaluate here is Bloedorn v. Grube. This case was a similar situation, where a traveling preacher, Benjamin Bloedorn, came to the campus of Georgia Southern University to spread his religious messages but was asked to leave and apply for a permit before he continued to broadcast his messages at that location. Bloedorn was not happy with this response and that he must apply for a permit, so he sued Georgia Southern University stating that his First Amendment rights were being violated. In both Bloedorn v. Grube and the case at hand, the sidewalks are clearly located within the campus, further emphasizing that it is a limited public forum.

              As for my own analysis, I side with what the courts have said thus far. I agree that because the location where the preacher was spreading his religious messages was a limited forum, it was not within his rights to be there without a permit that is required by the university. Additionally, it is important to follow the guidelines of the University, which is a public and state-funded entity. Considering some other precedents set before this case further shows what the outcome should be. In Bloedorn v. Grube there was uncertainty about whether the sidewalks in question at Georgia Southern University were limited or traditional public forums, but eventually it was decided that because the sidewalks are internal to the campus, they would be considered a limited forum. In this case and the current case in question, at the location of the specific sidewalk it is clearly distinguishable that you are in the middle of a college campus, proven by surrounding university buildings and dorms. On the other hand, in Widmar v. Vincent, the decision was made that the University of Missouri was inhibiting the First Amendment rights of students to use a facility for their religious meetings. However, in this case, the location at hand was considered a public forum. This is a factual difference from the case here at the University of Alabama. For these main reasons, I believe that it is appropriate that the traveling preacher must attempt to get a permit to speak on the sidewalks of the University of Alabama. Additionally, I think it is clear that the sidewalks involved would be considered a limited forum. I do think this case could be more interesting and perhaps decided differently if it was a sidewalk on the outskirts of campus, or a location very close to campus, but not explicitly on the campus.

Links:

University of Alabama wins free speech lawsuit brought by sidewalk preacher - al.com

Widmar v. Vincent | Oyez

BLOEDORN v. GRUBE | FindLaw