Another look at freedom of speech in Teaneck

I enjoy reading Joseph Kaplan’s monthly columns. They are well-written and his passion for the issues discussed is refreshing. Last week’s column (“Freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble,” 3/7/25) was no exception. But while I agree with much of what Mr. Kaplan writes regarding the importance of the constitutional protections for free speech, it is important to provide further background to put things in perspective.

Mr. Kaplan implies that Teaneck demonstrators do not “need a permit to exercise [their] right to peacefully assemble.” That is not true. Teaneck has had an ordinance for many years that places content-neutral, time, place, and manner restrictions on a group’s ability to exercise its First Amendment right to peacefully assemble, including the requirement to obtain a permit (though the present ordinance does not appear to be enforced). For example, Mr. Kaplan presumably has no objection to the provision in that ordinance that Teaneck will not issue a permit to a group seeking to peacefully assemble at 3 a.m.

Mr. Kaplan also writes that the current process of seeking to pass a new ordinance has “slowed down a bit” and that this “new pace is wise when dealing with this precious right, as was the Township Council’s decision to retain an independent constitutional expert to assist it in its task.”

I respectfully disagree. To be sure, the First Amendment right of free speech is precious, but it is difficult to understand how one can be happy with recent actions by some members of the Township Council to further delay efforts to preserve the safety of Teaneck citizens. For over a year, there have been many harassing and intimidating demonstrations, including at least two approximately a year ago that took place outside houses of worship in Teaneck, and one outside a private residence in Bergenfield last November. This is not a time to “slow down” the process, but to belatedly cross the finish line.

The ordinance discussed at the February 25 Teaneck council meeting would have, among other things, prohibited picketing or other activities that are undertaken to disrupt and are directed at and take place either (a) in front of or adjacent to a particular private residence or (b) within 300 feet of a religious establishment (such as a house of worship) around certain hours when religious activities are taking place.

It is indisputable that government may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech when they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The ordinance discussed at the February 25 meeting passes this test. Indeed, in 1988, the United States Supreme Court upheld an ordinance that similarly prohibited picketing directed at, and taking place in front of or adjacent to, a particular private residence. Federal appellate courts also upheld ordinances that prohibited picketing directed at and taking place within 300 feet of funerals, including when held in a house of worship when such activity was disruptive or undertaken to disrupt.

One would think that if a 300-foot buffer zone is constitutionally permissible with regard to funerals, it would surely be permitted outside religious services.

And yet the ordinance discussed at the February 25 meeting could not even muster four votes to support its introduction at the next council meeting (and then, hopefully, voted upon at the following council meeting).

As Deputy Mayor Karen Orgen stated at the end of the February 25 meeting, the ordinance was first brought forward in January. Council members had the opportunity before the meeting to raise any genuine concerns with both the Town Counsel and with Akiva Shapiro, an experienced First Amendment lawyer at the Gibson Dunn law firm, who provided guidance to the council for free.

Finally, Mr. Kaplan emphasizes the “19 words” within the First Amendment that protect the “freedom of speech” and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” But as I am sure Mr. Kaplan is aware, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution has 45 words and placed before the words protecting “freedom of speech” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” are the words protecting the “free exercise” of “religion.”

Recent efforts to silence Jews from practicing their constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their religion, including practices related to the religious principle regarding the fundamental connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, cannot be allowed to succeed, especially when those efforts also place those individuals in harm’s way.

As stated by Deputy Mayor Orgen at the February 25 council meeting, the two most important jobs of the council are to protect the safety of Teaneck residents and the feeling of the residents that they are safe here. For the last year, the council has failed to do their job. Passage of an ordinance that imposes content-neutral, time, place, and manner regulations for demonstrations, such as the one discussed at the February 25 council meeting, is long overdue. It is incumbent upon the council to pass such an ordinance as soon as possible.

Eliott Berman is an attorney who has lived in Teaneck for nearly 30 years.

opinion

comments