|
|
Post by concerned on Nov 8, 2006 18:32:06 GMT -5
Hi Everyone, I read in the opinion section of the asbury park press a few days ago about a possible ordinance that would require paying for a permit to be able to distribute advocacy literature. Is there truth to this, and is the ordinance going to/did already pass? Or was this just pre-election campaigning on the part of the writer? here is the letter: "Knock" permits hurt free speech Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/31/06 I recently read of an ordinance introduced by the Borough of Freehold to create a do-not-knock registry, where people engaged in political, charitable or philanthropic canvassing will need to first obtain a permit, and an administrative cost will be charged to obtain this permit. Free speech is a right, not a privilege. Passing a law that requires people to inform their government in advance that they plan on sharing religious or political views with other residents is a threat to democracy. You should not have to ask permission to exercise your First Amendment rights. This law would subject anyone found to be violating it to a fine of up to $1,250 or imprisonment for up to 90 days. This would even include Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts trying to raise donations. Recently, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned a city ordinance that had similar provisions as the proposed law in Freehold. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court also issued a similar ruling protecting the rights of free speech. In municipal government, ordinances are introduced then given time for public comment. I hope the elected officials in Freehold do the right thing and remove the language that restricts free speech when this ordinance comes up for a vote on Nov. 6. Michael Skudera COUNCILMAN TINTON FALLS www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061031/OPINION/610310335/1032 |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 8, 2006 18:41:52 GMT -5
Hello Concerned, This is the link to the pages on this web site where you will find discussion on this issue. I know the site has much info, and at times threads get buried quick. Feel free to read and respond to anything you see here. Thank you for asking, I hope this helps. Brian admin freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1157650788Also take note, this thread has been hot. You will see a page number for this one in the upper left hand corner. Do not forget to look at both pages. |
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 8, 2006 19:15:14 GMT -5
I don't understand how people can say that the "No-Knock Ordinance" violates free speech.
It's not free speech if you are trespassing on someone else's lawn. If people want to sign a "Do Not Knock" registry, in which they are notifying others that they do not want others on their lawns, they should be given that right, regardless of the message being given out by the "knocker."
If someone wants to make the argument that having a "no knock ordinance" is violating free speech, the same can then be applied to having a "do not call" registry. Only, one involves a house, the other involves a phone line.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 8, 2006 20:01:00 GMT -5
If you are so worried about having someone kock on your door, put up a "No Trespassing" sign. Why do you need legislation? Furthermore, everyone at this site knows that there is only one reason for this ordinance, and it is not the safety of the residents - it is one slumlord who asked someone down the street from one of his houses if they wanted to sell. Does anyone know of any other incidents?
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 8, 2006 20:19:24 GMT -5
Well, just to play "Devil's Advocate": 1.) Why should a homeowner have to go out of their way and make/pay for a "No Trespassing" sign for their own home. 2.) Why should a homeowner have to put out a tacky looking "No Trespassing" sign in front of their beautiful house? 3.) It's their house. Why should they have to make excuses? They're the ones paying for it--not the "knocker." Am I correct?  F R |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 9, 2006 6:01:03 GMT -5
No Trespassing signs? Trust me, signs do not work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 10:05:50 GMT -5
Ask David and Maryellen Rhodes on Enright Avenue if the group of door to door salesmen, from Brooklyn, whom they called the police on (last week), were doing here. They had no solicitor's permits and they were selling products- by knocking on doors.
They are part of what promises to become a new wave of door to door salespeople looking to replace lost revenue from the "no call list." We don't need them here and why not be proactive? The Rhodes can't wait to get on the No-Knock list. Mrs. Rhodes made it very clear to me that she doesn't want strangers coming to her door and THIS IS HER RIGHT. IT IS OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY!
As for safety? Why not? We don't need another Sam Manzi case or the one involving the murdered 80 year old lady in "Toms River Twp." in Freehold Borough. How would we all feel if that happened right next to a neighboring township that already passed the same ordinance some time ago? We didn't invent this ordinance, we are only adopting it. If you read the other articles posted on this site, you will see that FB is not even close to being the first nor the only town in NJ with this type of ordinance. In fact, you will see that a town up north has this specific ordinance for the sole purpose of discouraging "real estate canvassers." With a few early exceptions, there has been very little fanfare or controversy in he towns that already have this ordinance in place Every hear any controversy about Freehold Township's?
And, by the way - Michael Leftkovitz was not the only blockbuster going door to door in FB. Just one we had more of the goods on. There is also Michael Steiner, Jacob Lifnutsz and others. I can use these names because other residents have reported on their activities.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 10:12:12 GMT -5
Let me clarify this point - we (residents) don't need them (door to door salesmen or blockbusters) here if we don't want them at our doors. I don't. If I want to buy their products I'll visit their stores or respond to their ads.
From a government standpoint, proper due diligence is for us to know who may be knocking on our resident's doors and to make sure they have the proper identification to show those permitting them to knock on their doors.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 9, 2006 11:06:23 GMT -5
Marc, so does this mean that the ordinance will be limited to door-to-door salesmen (with an exemption for non-profits/charitable organizations)?
By the way, I would argue that your right too privacy is on the inside of your home and the right to turn some off your land. Do people really want the right to have people from taking a step onto their property - in the suburbs?
This Brooklyn salesmen are an anomaly. I have never seen a real door-to-door salesman in my entire life, and Mike Lefkowitz and these Brooklynites are the only time I have heard of one (outside of a black-and-white television show). It is not a smart business decision in today's world for people selling products or services. Good luck to the guy who thinks they can sell you something at your door.
I would check that previous commenet with one news story that comes out every year - the guy who says that he'll pave your driveway right now if you pay him cash - he then takes the money and runs. I do not know how a no knock ordinance will affect a criminal, though - probably no effect at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 9, 2006 11:12:38 GMT -5
Not only salespeople, but I don't know of anyone who likes to be woken up at 8 in the morning, on a Saturday or Sunday, to Jehovah's Witnesses, or other religious groups, preaching at their door.
A homeowner should have the right to not allow people they do not know from coming to their door.
And I'm sure the homeowner is only going to enforce it if they have been agitated.
Point being, if a new neighbor comes to someone's door to bring over a pie and say 'hello,' I doubt the person is going to enforce the "No Knock Ordinance."
However, if a fanatic comes to their door to "spread the word of God" and tells them they can be "saved," I'm sure that person will be quick to call the police.
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 9, 2006 11:41:59 GMT -5
Call the person because of religious speech?
Can't anyone here just tell someone politely to go away - I am sure you have done it before, but now it seems everyone has the idea to call the police on these violent trespassers. If they were so bothersome, why didn't you call the police on the Jehovah Witnesses before? Do you threaten your religious foundations that much or do you resent their faith? Give it a break. The one time they come to your house every five years, just tell them your are a practicing _____ and close the door. Do the same with the once a decade knock you get from the Mormons. What kind of society have we become where we live in these small little lots and are afraid of someone walking up our sidewalk? Were those 5 seconds too much of your time to tell someone to "get off my property!" You have tolerance of spanish being used in politics but not someone walking up your steps.
I think this whole line of postings is just sad. The decay of society, of politeness, of neighborhood. Get your 7 foot tall fence, locked gate, no trespassing signs, and hide on the second floor with a gun peering out your window Oswald, because you are losing it.
With that, I formally declare that this horse has not only been beaten, but run over - several times, scraped up, shipped to the cannery, made into dog food, been eaten, and already been picked up in a little plastic baggie and having been sent to the trash tied in a baggie, it will resist decay and linger in its present state for at least 150 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 11:43:03 GMT -5
Sibyl:
I asked for the ordinance to be held so that we can further discuss some of these issues and possibly fine tune the details. Nothing that has ever been passed, anywhere, will ever satisfy everybody. We just have to be sure to conduct our due diligence prior to moving on to satisfy the majority of the people served. We do this with the very best intension's. Paralysis is never a responsible aid in getting things done. Such ordinances may pro actively prevent issues of future concern. So, let our oars be in the water on this one. The early warning signs of some threats to our privacy and safety, at home, have already presented themselves and failing to address them might have dire consequences down the road. It already has, in other towns, prompting them to act in the same manner.
On a related topic... (don't think it doesn't bother me realizing that) had some past board of healths (before I returned to council) discussed increasing their fines - I disagreeistance in busting the illegal restaurant might have led to Judge Basin having more to work with in his court.
Also, had the rental advisory committee been proposed earlier and had an earlier start allowed them to wrap things up ahead of this bust, the town might have already had new tools to really burn the bastards running it - especially the Wall cop. Timing is everything - but who knows what is coming our way and when? Darn straight, when I caught wind of the operation I immediately advised the board of health to recommend increased fines and I shared all the information with the rental committee, which will probably factor into their recommendations to council. A report probably coming this or next month.
If the No Knock ordinance can make a PROACTIVE difference in our town, I'll vote YES for it, realizing that there may not be universal approval. If I expected universal approval on everything we ever attempt, I would do better in a therapist's chair than in a council seat.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 11:47:04 GMT -5
I don't know what my fingers did here. ...discussed increasing their fines - my involvement and assistance in busting the illegal restaurant....
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 9, 2006 11:47:24 GMT -5
I disagreeistance in busting the illegal restaurant might have led to Judge Basin having more to work with in his court. Your message got garbled. Were you using naughty words again? Anyway, most of your message is off-topic. We posted our last messages within seconds of each other. We should start a new topic to discuss other things. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 11:49:38 GMT -5
Oh...and by the way, while we're also on this other topic (re: illegal restaurant) ...the ABC has been called. A response may be expected soon, we hope.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 9, 2006 11:49:51 GMT -5
Sibyl,
Answer my question.....
Who pays to live in said house?
The homeowner, or the religious fanatic/salesperson/fill-in-the-blank?
And then answer my next question:
Who has the right to call their own rules about they want at their house?
The homeowner? Or the person that does not belong there?
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 11:53:04 GMT -5
Good stuff, Sibyl. You are a very worthy debater. Sure, let's all move on. Bad fingers and all...
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 9, 2006 11:55:25 GMT -5
I just think it is over the edge. I think we have expressed ourselves well - and have not changed either person's mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 9, 2006 11:56:25 GMT -5
F R
We can move on. I am sure that there are many other areas of disagreement among us to explore...and hopefully, we'll also find some things to agree on.
Hey Sibyl...you already have "made a difference" - you seem to have brought F R out of his shell. In addition to cutting and pasting, he obviously has a mind of his own.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 9, 2006 16:43:49 GMT -5
Hey Sibyl...you already have "made a difference" - you seem to have brought F R out of his shell. In addition to cutting and pasting, he obviously has a mind of his own Marc ;D ;D ;D ;D I have been trying to get Fr out of his shell for a while, good job Sybil! On that note, these treads have been fantastic. This is what the site is about--ideas. |
|
