Posted on 09/01/2014 10:05:14 AM PDT by xzins
A federal appeals court ruled against a group of Christian evangelists who were forced to leave an Arab-American street festival in Dearborn, Michigan, in 2012.
Festival-goers threw rocks and water bottles at members of the Bible Believers group when they denounced Islam and called Mohammed a false prophet.
In response, Wayne County authorities threatened to ticket the Christian group if they did not leave.
On Wednesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed county authorities, ruling 2-1 that police were only trying to keep public order.
"The video from the 2012 festival demonstrates that (evangelists') speech and conduct intended to incite the crowd to turn violent. … Although robustly guarded by the First Amendment, religious conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society," the three-judge panel wrote in its ruling.
But one dissenting judge said the police should have tried to control the lawbreakers rather than stifle free speech.
"The First Amendment protects plaintiffs' speech, however bilious it was," Judge Eric Clay wrote in his 11-page dissent. "The majority … provides a blueprint for the next police force that wants to silence speech without having to go through the burdensome process of law enforcement. I expect we will see this case again."
This ruling runs counter to prior SCOTUS comments. I dont think that it will stand if appealed.
It's get heavy play around here.
> Festival-goers threw rocks and water bottles at members of the Bible Believers group when they denounced Islam and called Mohammed a false prophet.
"The First Amendment protects plaintiffs' speech, however bilious it was," Judge Eric Clay wrote in his 11-page dissent. "The majority … provides a blueprint for the next police force that wants to silence speech without having to go through the burdensome process of law enforcement. I expect we will see this case again."
This is an easy case. Plaintiffs Ruben Israel and the Bible Believers came to the 2012 Arab International Festival (“Festival”) to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs. Those beliefs compelled Plaintiffs to hurl offensive words and display offensive images at a crowd made up predominantly of children. Defendants themselves admit that these words and images were protected by the Constitution. A video shows Defendant Deputy Chief Dennis Richardson telling Israel that the Bible Believers must leave the Festival under pain of arrest because “what you are saying to them [the crowd], and they are saying back to you is creating danger.” This is a clear heckler’s veto, breaching the principle that “hostile public reaction does not cause the forfeiture of the constitutional protection afforded a speaker’s message so long as the speaker does not go beyond mere persuasion and advocacy of ideas [but rather] attempts to incite to riot.” Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899, 905 (6th Cir. 1975). The majority reaches the opposite result by misstating the law and slanting the factual record in favor of Defendants, the very parties who moved for summary judgment. The law and the facts do not allow for this result. I therefore respectfully dissent.I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND ANGRY CROWDS The First Amendment would hardly be needed if it applied only in a well-mannered marketplace of ideas. Fortunately, the right to free speech includes the right to speak passionately. The First Amendment “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). The right to free speech also means that “in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988) (quotation marks omitted). These principles do not change just because an outrageous speaker is confronted by an outraged crowd—“[l]isteners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.” Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134 (1992).
The First Amendment therefore does not allow for a “heckler’s veto.” This means that “[p]articipants in an orderly demonstration in a public place are not chargeable with the danger, unprovoked except by the fact of the constitutionally protected demonstration itself, that their critics might react with disorder or violence.” Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 133 n.1 (1966) (plurality opinion). The law could not be otherwise, else “free speech could be stifled by the speaker’s opponents’ mounting a riot.” Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. No. 204, 636 F.3d 874, 879 (7th Cir. 2011). Therefore, if the state cracks down on a speaker because his constitutionally protected expression stirs listeners to anger, that is a content-based restriction on speech that must survive strict scrutiny. See Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 135–36.
CONCLUSION (p. 29) The majority misstates the law and misconstrues the facts to hand this case to Defendants. The First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ speech, however bilious it was. As for the good faith defense, there are too many issues of fact to be resolved on summary judgment—especially on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The majority retreats from our commitment in Saieg to the principle that the First Amendment cannot be shut out of the Festival, and by so doing provides a blueprint for the next police force that wants to silence speech without having to go through the burdensome process of law enforcement. I expect we will see this case again.
[Emphases added]
The SCOTUS needs to thoroughly denounce this Appeals Court majority Sharia-style decision. But the probability of that is about as likely as Duggan, Donald, and Mays (and the Wayne County islamofascists) being indicted by the Just-Us Department on charges of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Excellent, informative post, Carl. Thank you.
Speaking about your religion should not be equated with ‘shouting fire in a theater’. When considering both free exercise and free speech, the Founders knew that tolerating religion and speech was the only way to avoid religion police and speech police.
Apparently, Dearborn chose both religion and speech police.
On May 11, 2011, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion (archived at Saieg v. City of Dearborn, et al.), which supported the rights of a former Muslim, now Christian pastor, George Saieg and his group's talking and handing out brochures at a 2011 Arab International Festival in (what is more appropriately called the islamofascist regime of) Dearbornistan (Wayne County), Michigan.
At the following year's festival, under the Nazi-like leadership of Wayne County Deputy Chief of Operations Dennis "Heinrich Himmler" Richardson, Director of Law Enforcement Mike "You have the option to leave; I hope you understood me" Jaefar, and Wayne County Director of Legal Affairs Ursala "Chef Oberaufseherin" Henry, the Dearbornistan Gestapo simply stood back as the islamomob (including young children) cursed, threatened, and then rioted as they threw eggs, rocks, pieces of concrete, bottles, and other objects at the Christian group legally gathered in a public area. Several Christians were injured, but did not retaliate verbally or by force. Here's the video of the islamo-violence.
Deputy Führer Richardson's Gestapo finally moved in—on the Christians!— and threatened to cite the Christian group for disorderly conduct if they did not leave. The Christian group sued the county and the various thug officials for violating and failing to protect their First Amendment rights.
According to an August 28, 2014, article, "Appeals Court Rules Against Christian Missionaries Attacked at Arab Festival":
In May of 2013, District Court Judge Patrick J. Duggan ruled against the evangelism group, arguing that they lacked a case against Wayne County.That led to the Christian group's appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Plaintiffs have cited no authority, and the court has not located any, for the proposition that free speech rights categorically trump the authority of municipal entities to preserve order and protect public safety," wrote Duggan.
"The court finds that the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs'] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd."
This truly must go to the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.