There is an interesting en banc ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where the court held that Christian evangelists who were “preaching hate and denigration to a crowd of Muslims” are entitled to damages for being ejected from participation as protesters in the 2012 Arab International Festival. The case raises the long-standing concern over the “heckler’s veto” where a speaker is silenced to appease an angry mob or crowd. The case is Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015 FED App. 0258P (6th Cir. 2015)
In his famous law review article coining this term, Harry Kalven observed “If the police can silence the speaker, the law in effect acknowledges a veto power in hecklers who can, by being hostile enough, get the law to silence any speaker of whom they do not approve.” See Harry Kalven, Jr., The Negro and the First Amendment 140 (Ohio St. Univ. Press 1965).
The Sixth Circuit clearly agreed. The Court detailed how in a prior year, the Christians were forced to end their protests. In anticipation of similar efforts by Deputy Chief Mike Jaafar and others involved in the earlier crackdown, the Bible Believers wrote to reconfirm that they would not be targeted to appease the crowd. They received a letter largely denying their account of the prior protests and reminding them that the police would act to stop any potential violence.
In the 2012 protests, the Christians would again be surrounded by irate Muslims and the police would again remove the Christians to avoid any violence. Muslims were incensed by one Christian carrying a severed pig’s head on a spike in a belief it would keep the Muslims at bay. Another declared that “You believe in a prophet who is a pervert,” and, “God will reject you.” Muslims counter-protesters started to take violent action like throwing objects at the Bible Believers.
In summary, the Bible Believers attended the 2012 Festival for the purpose of exercising their First Amendment rights by spreading their anti-Islam religious message. When a crowd of youthful hecklers gathered around the Bible Believers, the police did nothing. When the hecklers began throwing bottles and other garbage at the Bible Believers, a WCSO officer intervened only to demand that the Bible Believers stop utilizing their megaphone to amplify their speech. Virtually absent from the video in the record is any indication that the police attempted to quell the violence being directed toward the Bible Believers by the lawless crowd of adolescents. Despite this apparent lack of effort to maintain any semblance of order at the Festival, each time the police appeared on the video—to reprimand the use of the Bible Believers’ megaphone, to suggest that the Bible Believers had the “option to leave” the Festival, to trot by on horseback while doing next to nothing, and to expel the Bible Believers from the Festival under threat of arrest—the agitated crowd became subdued and orderly simply due the authoritative presence cast by the police officers who were then in close proximity. Only once is an officer seen removing one of the bottle-throwing teens. Israel, when faced with the prospect of being arrested for disorderly conduct, observed, “and you would think we would be complaining, but we’re not.” (R. 28-A, Raw Festival Footage, Time: 00:55:16). The Bible Believers were thereafter escorted from the Festival and ticketed by a large group of WCSO officers for removing the license plate from their van.
It is clear that the police were targeting the speakers rather than those who were threatening to take violent actions or actually taking such actions in response to their exercise of free speech. The Bible Believers were being blamed for “inciting” others — a dangerous standard that would gut the first amendment. Indeed, we have seen the erosion of free speech in the West based on such notions of incitement This includes some efforts in the United States by groups to ban free speech in subway advertisements and other forums.
The Sixth Circuit refused to join this trend:
Notably, a heckler’s veto effectuated by the police will nearly always be susceptible to being reimagined and repackaged [*63] as a means for protecting the public, or the speaker himself, from actual or impending harm. After all, if the audience is sufficiently incensed by the speaker’s message and responds aggressively or even violently thereto, one method of quelling that response would be to cut off the speech and eject the speaker whose words provoked the crowd’s ire. Our point here is that before removing the speaker due to safety concerns, and thereby permanently cutting off his speech, the police must first make bona fide efforts to protect the speaker from the crowd’s hostility by other, less restrictive means.
For me, the role of Corporation Counsel in this flagrantly unconstitutional action is the most disturbing. The Sixth Circuit noted “Corporation Counsel informed the Bible Believers by way of letter that ‘under state law and local ordinances, individuals can be held criminally accountable for conduct which has the tendency to incite riotous behavior or otherwise disturb the peace.'” That position is not only in direct conflict with core constitutional cases and principles, it would negate much of our free speech values in the United States. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit has not lost sight of those values but it is a dangerous thing to have key police and lawyers in Wayne County who maintain such ill-informed and abusive views.
That’s the truth Nick. Feel much freer?
Hey Nick:
You know what’s funny?
Your complete lack of response to the weaknesses addressed in your comments
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32
Oh, David. Thank you, thank you, thank you for that!
I’d love to be able to see who is ready to join David’s team.
But David doesn’t spin. Kudos for that.
Any thoughts about Pam Geller?
Slyvestere wrote: “Any thoughts about Pam Geller?”
No. I don’t know her.
Jack: Nice try, but no cigar.
The Federal system was significantly different than the system under the Confederation of States, which is why Henry what prompted Henry and Webster to speak out.
Same goes for Tenche Coxe when he speaks of the people. “The people” was how they referred to the citizens of individual states in opposition to a federal government.
Moreover, the public lived in a far different world in 1764 when criminal assaults could be carried in the near absence of policing.
If you can’t read a whole book, at least try reading an entire chapter for some context. You’re doing nothing more than pulling selective quotes untethered from the context in which they were made.
Careful. Jack prefers we remain on topic.
Jack, It’s getting really wacky. Almost time for the World Series. I said the Royals in 6 prior to the start. If the Mets can’t win tonight, it may not go 6.
Oh. You saw it on TV. Why didn’t you say so? Lord knows everyone speaks the unadorned truth, without guile, without an agenda, without any motive at all except to discuss their most personal reflections and regrets on TV.
Jack, You were challenged and you stepped up to the plate and err, would saying “hitting a home run” be a microagression? Would it give women the vapors? I am just so intimidated, I don’t know what I can say!! Liberal women are just so fragile. I do note the person who challenged you has not said anything. Is it possible you actually did..naw. LOLI
Jack, feel free to email @ ndspinelli@hotmail.com. I can give you some background.
Victims? Liberals love being victims?
Damn. Who knew those millions of evangelical Christians and fundamentalists and all those suffering from the Wars on Christmas were liberals? All those Hobby Lobby people, and those Roman Catholics who suffer so by checking a little box. Victims all.
I had no idea they were all liberals.
It was also the argument of Aridog, who said that the Arab Festival participants were being denied their rights to hold a festival that they’ve put on for the past 17 years.
Nick,
I really do enjoy delivering the knockout blow in online and in-person debates.
By now you should just recognizing Annie’s need for attention. She can’t garner any from presenting intelligent points worthy of discussion. So, she has to rely on being a victim, or pointing out how someone else is, or could be, a victim.
Either that or she’s just ignorant when it comes to metaphors.
No one said that Professor Turley was arguing anything. I was referring to my argument that certain person had difficulty grasping.
David, You have the patience of Job.
Professor Turley’s argument was simply relaying what the Court of Appeals determined, that the free speech rights of Ruben and the Bible Believers were being violated by the LEO’s providing security at the festival. That is contrary to your argument, Annie.
The attorney I saw interviewed did not express joy in working the case. He was speaking for himself, not the ACLU. He expressed revulsion for what his clients stood for but said it was his job to defend their Constitutional rights. WTF are we arguing here? My point in saying the guy was a Jew was to point out the courage and dedication he had. If you can’t understand it would be personally more offensive for a Jewish attorney than WTF am I even talking w/ you for? You came gunning for me last night, a voice from the past. Get a life, or some clients.
Now the ACLU is becoming more PC?
REAL women?
IIRC the attorney was a Jew?
What is with this constant categorization?
“Andy, that was violent rhetoric, that should not stand, I tell ya’!”
Barney Fife.
BS back at you. I did not say they approved of the Nazis. I said they did not hate taking the case. The case was EXACTLY the kind of case they always took. There was no hesitation, there was no argument, there was no compelling.
It is silly to support your position by stating the attorney was a Jew. The ACLU had jewish attorneys, protestant attorneys, black attorneys, catholic attorneys, hindi attorneys, muslim attorneys. What they hell does that prove.? The important thing is that they were men and women who wanted to fight for justice and many made tremendous sacrifices to do so.
“Violent rhetoric.” Knockout is a metaphor. Intelligent, stable people understand that. Jack could not knock out anyone through his computer screen. Although, one must have a firm grasp on reality to understand that BASIC FACT.