A case from Ohio reached the US Supreme Court today, a fight between a municipality and the Jehovah’s Witnesses over the right to knock on doors without a permit. The town claims they never turn down applications for the permits (there is no charge for the permits) and the applications are to help protect the residents from conmen and the like. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they have a 1st Amendment right to anonymous free speech. They position is that if people do not wish to be solicited all they need do is post a No Soliciting sign out front. I believe in this particular case, the law should be struck down.
I find myself conflicted though. Anyone who knows me understands I have no interest in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and in fact I usually don’t bother to answer the door when they ring. But take this a step further, regardless of the permit requirement’s consitutionality. Their position is essentially equivalent to the opt-out approach espoused by direct marketers: If you don’t want us to come in, you need to do something to tell us; otherwise we have the right to contact you. I would suggest that my home is mine and if I haven’t asked you to knock on the door, you have no right to do it (that is, the opt-in approach). I am a firm believer that privacy overrules free speech and I would extend this to telephone and mail (snail or e) solicitation as well. I truly believe in free speech, anonymous or not, even for causes I despise, but only in a public space. My home, my telephone, my mailboxes are mine and I don’t want you coming in unless I invite you. As one of the comments on MetaFilter says, the right to free speech does not guarantee an audience.
BillSaysThis 