Posted on 12/26/2019 7:16:47 AM PST by yesthatjallen
A member of a Michigan synagogue is suing anti-Israel protesters and Ann Arbor city leaders over 16 years of protests outside the Beth Israel Congregation, arguing the protesters have been uniquely provocative and that some restrictions on them would not violate free-speech protections in the U.S. Constitution.
The regular Saturday protests of up to a dozen people outside the synagogue, with signs the lawsuit describes as hateful and anti-Semitic, amount to harassment of worshipers, so dont qualify for full First Amendment protections, according to the 85-page filing in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan.
The First Amendment right of free speech does not entitle a speaker to use that right repeatedly to bludgeon, for weeks and years at a time, in the same location, the lawsuit said. The First Amendment is subject to appropriate limitations on its continued and repeated usage.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Marvin Gerber, a member of the Beth Israel Congregation, contends the protests violate Ann Arbor ordinances on such public gatherings. It seeks an order putting restrictions on the demonstrations and demands an end to what it calls harassing conduct. It also seeks unspecified damages for emotional distress.
Those named as defendants include protester Henry Herskovitz and his two organizations, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends and Deir Yassin Remembered, which say they were founded to advocate for Palestinians.
Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher Taylor is also among the defendants.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
And you know full well what constitutes “in your face” when it concerns your face.
Says who? Our notion of free speech and free press comes from England. In London, at least, they have a "Speakers' Corner" in Hyde Park. That's where people are free to say whatever they want. Other places, not so much.
ML/NJ
Ann Arbor sux. Good for this man!
We don't have to ape England - we have a written Constitution, complete with a First Amendment.
From the article:
“The lawsuit likely faces major hurdles. Federal courts have typically extended First Amendment protections widely, including to the most provocative and offensive speech. Its among the legal issues where there is significant consensus among judges with otherwise contrasting interpretations of the Constitution.”
In-your-face (my-face, really )is when someone goes specifically to a place because he believes I (or others like me) will be there. There might be some justification for this if I were a public figure, but I am not.
I have a right to go PEACEFULLY on my way.
ML/NJ
I don’t like the harassment element but I also don’t like the idea of restrictions on the 1st and free speech.
Go protest outside a mosque, see what happens. But a church or a synagogue are OK, I guess.
Why are they protesting at a synagogue? Because of the assumption a synagogue represents Israel and that all Jews are Israelis, and that everything Israeli is Jewish. If they want to protest against Israel, protest at the Israeli embassy, not at a synagogue. That is why this is harassment.
No you don't; it's liberals who invent fictitious "rights" - we American conservatives don't play that.
Extended is the key word here.
I don't object to "provocative and offensive speech" as long as the persons doing such don't choose the site for said speech where they think or know I might be.
I DO NOT have to listen to their "free speech."
ML/NJ
Restriction warrant.
What’s that? Google says nothing obviously relevant.
I don’t see the lawsuit going very far, though I sympathize. If they had attacked people or broken windows, you’d have some damage. But just standing vigil and shouting nasty stuff doesn’t strike me as a recoverable cause of action.
Their legal argument is very thin: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6592548-Synagogue-protesters-lawsuit.html
If permitting is needed for protests of some form but there is a special standard in protesting against Jewish and Israeli institutions in Dearbornistan, then what we have is a capricious of abuse of power used against Jews. Either there are restrictions applied equally, or there are none.
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.