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.
Was watching someone today. Not much activity. But, I still get paid..quite well, than you.
“In to your heart it will seep. Starts when you’re always alone…” There is a LOOONG list of DOCUMENTED undercover surveillance I have worked in court records in numerous venues. Watched people over years, videotaping their activities in public. I only do surveillance on people I’m paid to watch, and they never see me comin’.
Karen: You’re absolutely right. I will acknowledge that Olly said much the same thing along similar lines up near the top of this thread, and he was just as correct.
The Muslims here could have restricted ticket sales to qualified purchasers, or they could have printed and distributed rules and reservations regarding over the types of conduct that was allowable and then had the christians ejected from the conference.
These christians are going to go down in history as the same type of jackwagons that the Middleborough Baptist church members will be remembered as. With the permanency of the internet, it’s like a gang member getting gang tattoos on his face; it’s always going to be there, always going to be ugly, and always going to negatively impact the way people see them.
As regards the Hobby Lobby issue noted above:
The position that I support is to remove employers from the healthcare business. Everyone should buy health insurance individually. Employers could set up Health Savings Accounts, or something similar, but the employee should choose whatever policy suits their budget and beliefs. That would remove the employer entirely from any moral quandary over coverage. I would also like to see a return in consumer choice in coverage. Right now, all plans basically cover the same thing. Many women would like to save money on their premium and deductible. Financially responsible people would rather have, say, a choice of 15 birth control options with the usual, reasonable copay, rather than 26 forms of birth control, with no copay, but which jacks up their out of pocket healthcare costs. Seriously, how many different ways do people need to keep from getting pregnant?
Right now, the advantage with employer plans is that the employer shares the cost of the premiums, and has a bargaining advantage with its pool of customers. An employer could match a percentage in an HSA, as they do for 401Ks, or we could come up with some other strategy to provide a similar cost benefit. And I am curious to know if we can come up with a way to make all individuals benefit from a customer pool. Since the ACA requires everyone to buy health insurance, why doesn’t that qualify as a “pool?” Of course, that raises the legal question of whether anyone can be forced to buy a product. It would be interesting to see what we could come up with.
I’m thinking about doing it 17 more times for the record.
I would like to remind people that Christians can and do tolerate severe criticism of their religion. And if any do break the law and get violent, they get arrested. Most people will recall that “art show” with the crucifix in a jar of urine. If anyone did that with a Qu’ran, there would literally be blood shed globally. And the media would blame the insensitive people who did such a repellent act.
And yet, the Christians were rightly expected to use their words, not their hands, to express their feelings about this art. Madonna, and many other recording artists, depict Christianity in a way that offends some people.
When the Catholic pedophile priest scandal broke, there were shockwaves rightly felt throughout the world. There was deserved, savage criticism, and comedians will have material pretty much forever. Christians didn’t burn down any buildings over it. They all talked about it, or argued, and non-Christians hammered their faith, religion in general, and all the usual avenues of discussion.
The Bible Believers should not have interfered with the show. If they were so loud that guests could not hear, they deserved to be ejected. Otherwise, they have a First Amendment right to speak their mind, just like everyone here does.
Muslims globally need to understand that, with billions of people on this planet, someone, somewhere, is going to offend their sensibilities about their faith. It is literally impossible to expect the entire globe to obey your wishes on anything. And when you do get offended, civilized society expects and demands that you use speech to express your feelings, not violence.
The Muslims had every right to express opposition to what the Bible Believers said. They did not have the right to get violent. Period.
Hahaha, caught red handed!
I got bored w/ the game. Royals are getting pounded. I don’t do this internet alias well. But, I’m a mofo if I’m on the job and doing surveillance.
Nick: Were you pretending to be znew?
Schulte: Maybe I’m missing some context here, but I’m not seeing the ignorance you claim is contained in that paragraph you clipped.
I’m sure it’s up there in thread somewhere, but I didn’t see the conversation. I get what you’re saying about the S. Ct. and it’s basically acknowledging what Sylvestere is saying with the exception that conditions are going to change, presumably after the election.
I just don’t see anything ignorant on either side of that debate. You may not like what Sy has to say but that alone doesn’t make him ignorant.
Hall – he misconstrued the context of the debate.
LOL!
Woah. “Attack” I am just giving my opinion. I am a Democrat that loves Hillary, knows Bernie is a loser, and dislike your type that expect lockstep obedience. Democrat control freaks are ruining my great political party. You are the one “pretending” to be a Democrat, while really being a brown shirt.
Znew: You would not be the first person to attack Democratic supporters while pretending to be a Democrat.
1979 Nash. Count ’em and get back to us.
Thanks.
Znew
Nash and the other guy brought up the 2000 election. Not I.
I will counter if I feel the opposing view is incorrect. I think they were wrong. And I remember the fight that went on and how Gore was ineffectual in that fight. Gore DID get the most votes nationally. And finally, four Republican Supreme Court judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, decided that election. I bet Sandra Day O’Connor STILL regrets that decision. ‘Had to decide or the nation would be torn apart’. BS
It’s great that you think I’m the mean guy. I list a dozen instances of miserable lying tricks and you’re embarrassed by ME? Not Planned Parenthood? Not Benghazi hearings (seven of them)? Not Voter ID? Not Citizens United? Not dismantling Voting Rights? Not ‘Muslim President’? Not 20 kids slaughtered and no gun control?
I can’t help you.
Sylvestere…
You brought up the your view that “The Democrats accept elections”, and thr Republicans whine that”somebody stolrd the election.”
You should not have been surprized that you were called on that, and that the 2000 election was brought up to counter your ridiculous statement.
Your 9:18 PM post asked” how many years after the Clinton?” Your point seemed to be that Republicans raise questions about the Clintons’ character long after the their time in office.
I see that your meaning, clarified in a subsequent posting, is that their ethics have been questioned for “30-40 years”, so there should be no questions at this point about their character.
When you use words like “idiot”, “liars”, “going crazy “etc. in your rants about Republican partisanship, it undercuts your claim.
One might interpret your statements as partisan rants.
Sylvestere…you’re welcome.
I don’t mind correcting glaring historical errors.
Thanks for the history lesson Nash. Gee, I had NO idea the Clinton presidency ended in 2001.
It sure seems like 40 years. Have you no sense of humor – along with no sense of shame?
And Nash. Bill Clinton was governor. Huckelberry himself says he’s been fighting him for years. The Clintons are winning Democrats and have been since 1979. It drives the right WILD. It has been an unending battle. I bet Ken Starr is STILL investigating him.
Tom Nash, Another embarrassing aspect of my Democrats is their still fighting the 2000 election. It’s over. We lost. Focus on Hillary.
Wow, this Sylvestere is angry at Republicans. I mean I am a Democrat but mean guys like him embarrass me and the party. Relax.
Sylvestere…
Your “counter” on the 2000 election kind of sounded like whining, or maybe you didn’t accept the election results. Thought you said only the right did that.
Your question about the Clintons “30-40 years ago”…tells me that you’re not exactly a history buff.