A case that's making its way through the federal court system in St. Louis may have a major impact on how US law views the concept of freedom of assembly and association. At least that's the hope of people involved with the Rainbow Gathering and one person in particular who has written a brief for the Case known as US v. Nenninger. Scott Addison, who has been associated with the Rainbow Gatherings off and on, is arguing for a major paradigm shift in how fundamental First Amendment rights are viewed.

The case was first heard in Federal Court in St. Louis. The facts are basically as follows: Tony Nenninger has occasionally supplied piping to divert water from streams for Rainbow Gatherings, a loose association of people who come together to live communally for a brief period of time on public National Forest lands. The Forest Service officers asked Nenninger to sign a group use permit for 75 or more people. Nenninger refused to sign, because, he apparently felt that in good conscience he could not sign on behalf of all the people present. He was not their representative, and the document in question warned that fradulently signing such document was against the law.

Nenninger has obtained legal help with his case from the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter. In the meantime, local activist Scott Addison says he has been trying to get the ACLU to argue what he says is a novel interpretation of Freedom of Assembly. He has also written an amicus brief to the court expressing his argument. Addison points out that a part of the UN Charter of Human Rights, which gives people the right to assembly and association, says, "that no government can compel people to belong to a group." That, says Addison is just what the group permit effectively does in the case of Rainbow Gatherings.

He says the Gatherings are not a group, "but an affinity. There are other affinities, like Cardinals (baseball) fans. This group permit is like the government forcing one Cardinals fan at a game to sign a legal document on behalf of other Cardinals' fans." The group permit, Addison further argues, serves to, "drive people out of the woods, based on their proximity to 74 other people."

Addison says that the way the group use permit has been used in regards to Rainbow Gatherings has been as a trigger for the enforcement of the law against participants and prevention of their using what is meant to be public lands. Addison argues this is an unconstitutional prior restraint of people's right to freely and peaceably assemble.

Addison also says that to compel Rainbow Gatherings to be seen as a group for purposes of enforcing the law also violates the religious beliefs of gathering participants. In his amicus brief, Addison refers to the non-hierarchical structure of the Rainbow Gatherings as an expression of, "a distinct mode and creed." He says that the National Forest officials are singling out the participants based on their belief in this creed.

There is legal precedent supporting some of the arguments that Addison and others advance. An Arizona District Court found such group use regulations unconstitutional in a case stemming from the 1998 national Rainbow Gathering because of vague language in the regulations. The Forest Service appealed and rewrote its regulations while the case was going through the court system. The Ninth Circuit Court reversed the District ruling by upholding the amended regulations but dismissing the citations against the defendants in the case known as U.S. v. Linick.

Next Page »

1 | 2