Bullhorn pulpit denied to pro-life group

A federal judge Friday denied a request by anti-abortion plaintiffs to require the city to allow the use of an amplified bullhorn at times and places that violated local law to “communicate the Gospel and a pro-life message.”

The preliminary injunction requested by plaintiffs Steven Klein, Howard Putnam and Glen Biondi would have prevented the city from enforcing its noise ordinance. The ordinance bans the use of amplified sound equipment within 100 yards of schools, hospitals, churches, courthouses and City Hall when the facilities are in use, and for 30 minutes before and after use.

“This was not the final word on the case, but it is a favorable development for the city,” City Atty. Philip Kohn said.

The plaintiffs sought to use an amplified bullhorn on the sidewalk next to Laguna Beach High School after the closing school bell, then proceed to the sidewalk outside City Hall to finish up in the downtown area, which includes Laguna Presbyterian Church.

In a hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction, the judge evaluates the merits of the plaintiffs’ case and the probability they will prevail in court.

In this case, the judge opined that the plaintiff wouldn’t be able to make his case, Kohn said.

“The judge’s ruling does not throw out the case,” Kohn said. “Since this only happened on Friday, I do not know the intentions of the plaintiffs.”

In the past, Klein has taken a case to the 9th District Court of Appeals. Telephone calls to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Michael Kumeta and William Gillespi, were not returned by deadline.

The plaintiffs had originally sought monetary damages and then filed the request for a preliminary injunction, Kohn said.

In his denial, Judge Cormac Carney ruled that city regulations constitute reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of amplified sound, according to a news release issued Tuesday by City Manager Ken Frank.

According to the release, “[Carney] stated that the regulations are content-neutral, they serve significant governmental interests, they are narrowly tailored to serve those interests, and they leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

“For example: the plaintiffs are able to assemble, display signs and placards, distribute literature, and engage passersby in conversation at all of their desired locations and times, and to use loudspeakers during permitted times and in permitted locations. In short, their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment are not unduly burdened, and ‘they should have no difficulty expressing [their] viewpoints in the city.’”

“Carney described the city’s efforts to curtail sound amplification restrictions as ‘deliberate and careful,’” Frank stated.

Carney stated in the news release that it would not be difficult to imagine a free-speech arms race of sorts, where groups competed with one another to be heard “” each turning up the volume a notch to attract attention.

“Students, members of the public who live in and visit the city, those involved in governmental activities, and businesses have an interest in being free from undue disruption and maintaining their tranquillity and safety,” Carney stated.

“While persons can avert their eyes from signs and can choose to ignore a solicitation to listen to a lecture, they have no means to escape the amplified sound proposed by the plaintiffs.”