June 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 27

Francisco's Palace of Fine Arts
Park. About an hour and a half
into the service, service was interrupted
by the park ranger and
Plaintiff Stewart, as a church representative,
received a $192 fine
for violating Section 7.03, which
requires a permit for " musical
performances " with sound amplification.
Plaintiffs disagreed with
the fine, but decided to pay it and
hoped to find another park to
worship in. At the time, Plaintiffs
believed that the rule restricting
amplification was limited to the
Palace of the Fine Arts given the
touristy nature of the park.
Two weeks later, on February 7,
2021, Plaintiffs decided to worship
in Potrero del Sol Park, believing
that a permit was not needed for
that location. However, 30 minutes
into the worship service, Plaintiffs
were confronted by a park ranger
who informed Plaintiffs that they
were in violation of Section 7.03
because they were having a musical
performance with sound amplification
without a permit. Plaintiff
Stewart was issued another citation
for this incident.
CFM received another citation
two weeks later on February 21,
2021, due to the group's worship at
McClaren Park. However, this time
the citation was not for using sound
amplification, as CFM did not use
amplification during this service.
Instead, CFM was cited for having
a religious service with more than
50 people without a permit.
Despite the troubling and constant
presence of park rangers and
police officers at their worship services
and the recurring citations,
Plaintiffs did not wish to give up
their right to worship in public
spaces. On March 21, 2021, Plaintiffs
decided to worship at the United
Nations Plaza, an area Plaintiffs
did not consider to be a public park.
A few minutes into the worship service,
a citation was written by another
park ranger for violation of
Section 7.03.
Park Permit Application
In pertinent part, the City and
County of San Francisco's Park
Code Section 7.03 provided: " No
person shall, without a permit, perform
any of the following acts in
any park, " including: " Conduct or
sponsor a religious event involving
50 or more persons " or " Conduct
or sponsor any event which utilizes
sound amplification equipment. "
After
reviewing Section
7.03,
Plaintiffs had decided that CFM
would need a permit for worship
services in San Francisco public
parks. Plaintiffs started the application
process to obtain the necessary
permits for their church services,
but realized they also would need
to provide a " health and safety
plan, a certificate of insurance for
coverage of [$2 million], payment
of the permit fee, and a bond. " After
further consideration, Plaintiffs
decided that they could not go forward
with the permitting requirements
due to " the costs and burdensome
requirements. "
Preliminary Injunction
In their lawsuit, Plaintiffs requested
the federal district court to issue
a preliminary injunction enjoining
Defendants from enforcing and
applying San Francisco Park Code
Section 7.03, specifically subsections
7.03(h) and (m) of the regulation
to Plaintiffs' religious worship
and expression in San Francisco
public parks.
As described by the federal district
court: " A preliminary injunction
is an extraordinary remedy,
which should be granted only in
limited circumstances and where
the merits of the case plainly favor
one party over the other. " Accordingly,
to obtain a preliminary
injunction, Plaintiffs would have
to " conclusively prove their case
or show that they are 'more likely
than not' to prevail if the case was
allowed to proceed to trial.
First Amendment Speech
Restrictions
In their lawsuit, Plaintiffs argued
Sections 7.03(h) and 7.03(m) violated
the First Amendment. As
cited by the federal district court,
the
First Amendment prohibits
governmental entities " from enacting
laws abridging the freedom of
speech, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble. " Moreover,
the court noted: " The extent to
which a governmental entity can
constitutionally restrict
protected
speech depends on the character of
the property at issue, " in this case
public parks:
The Supreme Court has recognized
that members of the
public retain strong free speech
rights when they venture into
public streets and parks, which
have immemorially been held
in trust for the use of the public
and, time out of mind, have
been used for purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts
between citizens, and discussing
public questions. In order to preserve
this freedom, governmental
entities are strictly limited in
their ability to regulate private
speech in such " traditional public
fora " like public parks.
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | JUNE 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
27
June 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2023 - Parks & Recreation
