© UnknownThopsonville Village of Enfield Connecticut
In February, FIRE
wrote to the town of Suffield, Connecticut, about its proposed policy regulating activities on its town green. Suffield subsequently
abandoned the policy, which would have violated residents' First Amendment rights. But it turned out Suffield's proposal was based on a policy of the nearby town of Enfield. Now, in a new
letter, FIRE is calling on Enfield to follow its neighbor's lead by reforming its unconstitutional town green policy.
Next to the town hall in Enfield is an open area with a gazebo called the Town Green. Enfield makes the Town Green available for public use —
but only if visitors comply with Enfield's many requirements, several of which violate the First Amendment.Enfield's rules control more than the manner in which someone can use the Town Green — they control whether someone can use the Town Green at all. Any individual or group wishing to use the Town Green must first submit an application and receive approval from the town manager's office.
Individuals and small groups are not exempted, so the need for a permit seemingly applies to
anyone doing
anything. As FIRE explained in the
Suffield case, a town may require permits for some activities in a town green, such as those involving large groups or requests for exclusive use of the green. But requiring a lone pamphleteer or acoustic guitarist to obtain a permit before engaging in protected expression is excessive.
Comment: Evidently, and understandably, the multipolar world is preparing itself for significant changes up ahead. Meanwhile many nations in the West (and elsewhere) are struggling to keep their economies afloat: