Village Inn decision demands overturning

There has been much discussion during the war on terrorism about

whether new government policies infringe on Americans’ basic

Constitutional rights. Last month a much clearer, and therefore much

more chilling, attack on those rights occurred during a much smaller

war raging on Balboa Island.

This fight is one that could happen almost anywhere. On one side

is a Balboa Island homeowner, Anne Lemen. On the other is her

neighbor, the Village Inn. She claims the restaurant/bar is far too

noisy, far too late into the night and that the inn’s new owners, the

Toll family, have changed the establishment from a relatively quiet,

locals-mostly spot to a nightclub for non-islanders.

The Tolls, in return, say Lemen has harassed customers and wrongly

videotaped patrons at the inn.

Their battle, as so many do in America, escalated to the point

that it ended up in court. And an Orange County Superior Court judge

ruled in late August that Lemen cannot make false statements about

the Village Inn, make contact with the restaurant’s employees or

videotape the business from within 50 feet, except from her own

property (which happens to be 10 feet away).

Setting aside all the specifics of this dispute -- talking not at

all about whether Lemen has harassed customers or employees of the

Village Inn or if the new owners have created a nuisance that needs

to be curbed or shut down -- this injunction was wrong. It was wrong

for one fundamental reason: the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, the initial Constitutional freedom Americans

enjoy, guarantees Lemen the right to give her opinion of the Village

Inn, as it guarantees the same to the Village Inn’s owners and all

U.S. citizens. And this decision trampled unnecessarily on her

rights.

There are other legal recourses for the Village Inn owners to

pursue. Libel and slander laws exist so particular, improper

statements can be punished and so the First Amendment will not be

besieged as it has been in this case. The case is a perfect example

of what is known in free speech legal jargon as “prior restraint,”

that is a muzzle of her speech by the courts before the speech even

occurs.

Therefore, this is a decision that deserves the appeal Lemen and

her attorney have filed. It is one that demands to be overturned.