TOP COURT GETS CASE ON PARK USE

Suit Says Chicago Permit Process Curbs Free Speech.

The specter of a 1960s-style political activist will visit the U.S. Supreme
Court on Monday, when the justices hear arguments in a case that could
profoundly affect Americans' right to free speech.

Robert MacDonald, who died two years ago at age 36, became a minor
celebrity in Chicago during the 1990s. He was arrested for mob action as
part of the so-called Chicago 5 (all of whom were later acquitted) while
protesting alleged police brutality during the 1996 Democratic National
Convention. But he probably is best remembered as the organizer of
Hempfest, an annual event calling for the legalization of marijuana.

In 1997, however, the Chicago Park District denied MacDonald a permit to
hold his accustomed rally in Grant Park. The Park District said MacDonald
had violated the terms of prior permits. Among other things, it said some
protesters drank alcoholic beverages and remained in the park after hours.

MacDonald, who denied responsibility for any infractions, said the district
was muzzling him and sued for violation of his 1st Amendment free-speech
rights, saying "denial of a permit to hold a rally is the ultimate censorship."

MacDonald died while his case was making its way through the federal court
system. A judge allowed a fellow activist, Caren Thomas, and the Windy City
Hemp Development Board to substitute as plaintiffs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled last year for the Park District.

In an opinion by Judge Richard Posner, the appeals court recognized the
"danger in giving officials broad discretion over which political rallies
shall be permitted . . . because they will be tempted to exercise that
discretion in favor of their political friends . . . and the advocates of
legalizing the sale of marijuana . . . have very few political friends."

Nevertheless, Posner wrote, "A park is a limited space, and to allow
unregulated access to all comers could easily reduce rather than enlarge
the park's utility as a forum for speech."

The Hemp Development Board then appealed to the Supreme Court, which is
being asked to decide the constitutionality of the Park District's
procedures for granting permits for gatherings.

The board contends the Park District's refusal to let it hold a rally was a
prior restraint of protected speech. It says the district's "unfettered
discretion" to decide who can use the public parks allows it to
discriminate against those with unpopular political views.

The Park District, for its part, says it was exercising its legal authority
in denying the 1997 permit, not abridging freedom of speech.

"The Park District ordinance predominantly regulates non-expressive
conduct," such as sporting events and peddling food in the city's 552
parks, the district argued in its brief. The park-permit scheme is "part of
a comprehensive effort to manage a complex and intensively used system of
urban parks," it added.

The U.S. government, whose National Park Service almost certainly would be
affected by the court's decision, is supporting Chicago. It argues that the
park-permit scheme contains enough safeguards to protect freedom of speech
and, in any case, is not a prior restraint.

The marijuana activists are supported by Public Citizen, which has warned
about the case's potential impact on solicitation by charitable
organizations. The Washington-based consumer advocacy group has a lawsuit
pending in Florida challenging a Pinellas County ordinance that requires a
permit for any solicitation by direct mail, telephone or door-to-door
canvassing.

"In both the Chicago Park District and the Pinellas County cases, you have
the risk of censorship if officials don't like the message," said Bonnie
Robin-Vergeer, counsel for Public Citizen.

Thomas and the Hemp Development Board have a similar case pending against
the city of Chicago, which refused to let the marijuana activists parade
through the Loop in conjunction with the planned rally.

The appeals court backed the city as it had backed the Park District, and
the board asked the Supreme Court to review that decision too.

The disposition of the city case probably will be determined by the court's
decision in the parks case, which is expected by the end of June.