Stratton, Ohio, will have to find another use for its signs warning people, "No soliciting without a permit. Violators will be prosecuted." Because, no, they won’t be prosecuted, the Supreme Court decided last week. More to the point of the high court’s decision, people don’t need a permit to go door to door.
Weary of those who still dare to sell items door to door or share their religion in the same manner, Stratton’s leaders and some of its residents demanded people get a permit before knocking. Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religions protested the move. But the victory is not theirs alone. It is also a victory for those who might ring doorbells in hopes of gathering support for various political candidates. It’s absurd that a neighbor must first contact the government and obtain a permit before being allowed to follow through, Justice John Paul Stevens noted.
Only Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented. He argued the permit process was a valid crime prevention tool and that Stratton shouldn’t have to "endure its own crime wave before it takes measures to prevent crime." He also made reference to the murder of a Dartmouth University faculty couple killed by two teen-agers who came into their home after they said they were conducting a survey.
Requiring permits is unlikely to stop intruders intent on doing harm. People must continue to apply their own best judgment about dealing with strangers at the door. Neighbors must continue to look out for each other and not be afraid to speak to one another.
This case appears to be all about the small town of Stratton, frustrated with a nearby Jehovah’s Witnesses church whose members supposedly paid unwanted visits to residents. But it strikes at the heart of constitutional issues as well.
As frustrating as unwanted visits can be, excessive permits and regulations are no replacement for common sense and freedom of speech and religion.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
