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.
Modeled on the Nancy Drew series.
hmmmm. “The Careless Investigator”. Sounds like it would make a great TV series.
Pretty funny, about that ‘mistake’. Sorta like our own personal Kevin McCarthy on the Turley blog.
“Knocked me out” is OK, and whining about those words is not. This is a free speech blog.
THall is absolutely right. Every high school senior should read this before graduation. I’m pretty interested in government and politics and I only learned about the Powell Memorandum six months ago. Knocked me out. I don’t know if you followed up on it, but Powell was writing it to a good friend at the Chamber of Commerce. Corporate America indeed.
It’s not the socialists that America has to fear. It’s the fascists.
So glad you commented on this thread Aridog. I thought about you as soon as this topic was posted and knew you would be commenting from personal knowledge of the incident.
Solely on topic: I was there. NO Christians were “silenced”…far from it. If anything the hired sheriff’s deputies gave them a bully pulpit to act out upon. Those who pushed in to a permitted street fair to provoke were deterred, but not silenced. The festival was not merely on sidewalks, it was in the city thoroughfare and require a permit. The “protesters” refused to acquire such a permit for their activities and just barged on down the thoroughfare until blocked. I am a Christian and I had no problems mixing in peacefully. Had I wished to advocate for Christianity I could have acquired a permit and a space on the thoroughfare, within the festival area, to do so and no one would have objected. It was NOT a religious festival, but an Arab ethnic one. Period. Lacking the festival now, we still get similar agitators from 500-2000 miles away to rant in parks on on government building steps to crowds of 30 to maybe a 80 tops. Sadly, I think pseudo-Reverend Terry Jones from Florida missed Ramadan this year.
Annie: The Powell memo should be required reading along with Mein Kampf
Sylvestere,
I wasn’t familiar with the Powel memo, read if this morning. Soooo it all makes sense now the Corporatization of America, in every single aspect of our lives. I knew it was happening but not that there was a mastermind. Disturbing to know, but good to know. Thanks for bringing it up. I wonder how can we take back our Democracy against such powerful forces? One man one vote, maybe. But some want to get rid of that don’t they? I see why now. Who was it that said if a man has a dollar he should get one vote, if a man has a million dollars he should get a million votes, some corporatist probably.
THall Who knows? Some may find attractive, funny, smart women unappealing. There is no end of what surprising things you find out about people on this blog – ideas that you thought died in 1850 or once women’s suffrage was passed.
Slyvestere – “Some may find attractive, funny, smart women unappealing. ” Do you know any?
Sylvestere:
I am familiar with the Powell memo, written when he was Chairman of the GOP, outlining the steps his party needed to take control of the government. He downplayed the importance of the presidency and Congress by virtue of their frequent elections ensuring a regular turnover, while emphasizing the importance of gaining control of the judiciary, which called for identifying suitable talent as early as high school. (And suitable is interchangeable with malleable).
That’s more or less how we ended up with Thomas and Alito on the Supreme Court, and Priscilla Owens and Jay Bybee, among others sitting on appellate courts, and attorneys like John Yoo advising presidents.
Thanks for the links to Zinn reviews. How can anyone be put off by pictures of Marisa Tomei?
Hall – I like Marisa Tormei as an actress.
David:
Reagan raised taxes seven times, would never even entertain the idea of cutting capital gains.
The Reagan administration also ‘deficit spent’ more than all administrations before his put together; Keynesian economics works.
Money derives from the government, which then introduces it into the spending stream.
America didn’t reach full blossom until the fifties, when the full effects of a unionized labor force and sound financial regulation began to show.
So you’re wrong on the facts, wrong on the theory, but at least your honest enough to say that the Americans deserved no protection at work, in the market or with their savings. I guess for you, the Great Recession felt kinda nostalgic .
T. Hall wrote: “Reagan raised taxes seven times, would never even entertain the idea of cutting capital gains. … So you’re wrong on the facts, wrong on the theory…”
You don’t understand the facts that you quote. It doesn’t matter how many tax increases Congress gave President Reagan to sign into law, overall, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP decreased during his administration. The top tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28%. And the measure of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP doesn’t rightly consider the tax decreases because while the tax percentage decreased, revenues went up because wages increased and more jobs were created, leading to overall higher tax revenues with a lower tax rate.
It is frustrating to read your posts because they are filled with propaganda from the FAR, FAR left. You seem to make no effort to research and understand what you are talking about. You seem to be all about pushing ideology. Sorry I don’t have more time to correct the plethora of errors I see streaming forth from you and Sly.
Chew on the following Forbes article. Maybe it will help bring you back down to earth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/
THall
On Zinn from the Atlantic Compares Zinn to Barton. Don’t be put off by the picture of Marisa Tomei.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/lies-the-debunkers-told-me-how-bad-history-books-win-us-over/260251/
T hall
Here is an article that has some short notes on Zinn from other historians. Nothing deep, but you’ll get an impression
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/01/opinion/la-oe-miller1-2010feb01
I don’t think he was a great historian, but he was fun to read and offered some controversial opinions – not the usual pap from the DAR.
Medicare:
Here is a list of what Medicare costs and what it covers. Note that long hospital stays can cost over $600/day, and it does not cover residential care for Alzheimers. Most people get private gap insurance to help with Medicare costs.
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html
Also note that the trustees have announced that Medicare will fall short of funds by 2030 and will reduce benefits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/usa-fiscal-health-idUSL2N0Q310320140728
The difficulty with putting everyone on Medicare is that they assume it would operate exactly the same. But there is no magic money tree that would spring up overnight, so that everyone could pay the same for Medicare and get the same benefits. They would have to increase taxes significantly to pay for that. So it’s a math question. Would the increase in everyone’s out of pocket net cost, including the tax increase, be more or less than what people pay now for health insurance? Because if your premiums go down, but your taxes go up by more, or some other fees or costs go up, then you are worse off. Medicare is already running out of money with the people it handles already. Adding more is going to need significantly more money.
Also note that Medicare is not socialized medicine, because it uses private insurance as well. A lot of people on Medicare do like it. But costs are going up and benefits are going down, so obviously that will affect this attitude. And if, by adding the entire population of the US, that escalates that trend, of higher costs and lower benefits, then obviously the satisfaction with Medicare would suffer accordingly.
Cost and quality of care are the two most important aspects of health insurance reform. If it costs too much, people have to choose between paying their rent and paying for their health care. If taxes skyrocket, but there are no premiums or copays, then people will not self limit their health care. Then you have people clogging up doctors offices for splinters and colds, wasting everyone’s time and money. If the cost is affordable but the standard of care is low, then that is also a failure.
I think states are an excellent lab to try innovations in health care reform. We can try new things on a smaller scale and see what works and what doesn’t, under a variety of conditions. Because each state has its own unique challenges. And I also think that such reforms should be done with very narrowly worded bills, a few pages each. Representatives (had better!) read them and understand them, and if it doesn’t work, then it’s just a small bill that needs to be repealed or amended. That would create a very responsive, agile system instead of this supposedly too-big-too-fail monstrosity.
The most common argument I’ve ever heard against repealing Obamacare is that removing it would create a huge mess, and take away insurance from people who just got it. It’s not “this bill is so wonderful who would ever want to change it!” Instead, it’s so huge and ungainly that it would create too big a mess to unwind and start afresh. And ANY bill that subsidized health care could, by this definition, never be repealed and replaced because what are we going to do with the subsidized people in the meantime?
I have that answer. Pass a very small bill that would extend those subsidies for a few years while they transition to a new system.
THall and Annie
Are you familiar with the Powell (Supreme Court Justice) Memo? If you’re not, you may find it interesting. It’s easy to google. Then you may want to read this.
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/2/
I imagine John has read it. I’m pretty sure its engraved on a couple of gold tablets over at Cato.
DBQ:
“They have the right to picket, protest and otherwise express their opinions. They do NOT have the right to completely disrupt the event that they are protesting. And the people at the event also do not have the right to physically attack the Westboro people. No matter how tempting that idea is.”
Very true. And those who did resort to throwing rocks played right into their hands. But young guys aren’t known for their foresight.
Aridog: I thought the bullhorn was disruptive, but if they were disruptive in other ways, then they should have been ejected. I’ve always enjoyed the music at Middle Eastern events, and if they were being too loud, it would have ruined it. In many cases, the 1st Amendment means we have to put up with speech we dislike (as in when the KKK marches). But if they are actually interfering with an event, then it’s harassment. People get kicked out of sports stadiums for being disruptive all the time. My question is on what grounds were they able to get such a large settlement from being evicted previously? Don’t most city ordinances require a permit for protests? Or were they just saying obnoxious things and got evicted? What is the legal line between protected free speech and disorderly conduct or harassment?
Instead of playing right into their hands, if they put this on next year, then perhaps they could get a bunch of volunteers who want to spend the evening following the Bible Believers around, singing peace songs really loudly and otherwise acting as a peaceful barrier. Now THAT would have made a great video clip. It’s a teachable moment for the young people to learn not to resort to violence when someone angers them, and how to combat it more effectively.
The whole thing is a shame. These kinds of festivals are a lot of fun. Dearborn did not need this. Many Muslims have lived there for generations, and are as American and Westernized as apple pie. This can be a teachable moment. The Bible Believers were wrong for crossing the line and harassing the festival, but once those people started throwing rocks, they lost the high ground and gave them what they wanted. Then both sides were wrong.
Medicare for all is what we should have. Never happen. They’re doing their best to kill what we have now. They want to go to the health savings plans or vouchers. Clever fellows think we don’t know that will be the end of Medicare.
So ACA it is. We deserve better. Unfortunately, the right doesn’t think so.
Positive person? The guy who says Billy Joel will do a good job – if he isn’t drunk? You mean that positive person?
You guys are overthinking my comment.
There was a quote from somewhere. I don’t think a citation was given. A nice elegant quote that I liked having to do with speech and the recognition that such freedom comes with the price that you “must suffer that freedom in others”.
I liked it and took the liberty (I guess I should have asked permission) to swap out the speech part and exchange another 1st A, religion – the one that I think many are not willing to ‘suffer that freedom in others’.
Specifically women’s reproductive rights. You’ll recall the ones I listed and everyone should know what is going on with multiple court challenges to the ACA and new state laws. The most infamous is Hobby Lobby who demands their religious rights be respected but damn well doesn’t care about others religious beliefs or views. Therefore, I determined that that elegant quote was a crock, when it came to my rights And that applies to Kim Davis, too. Then I sort of tripped out and incorporated the attack on the Voting Rights Act and threw in Voting ID for good measure. So sue me. I was writing a comment. Not a college paper that I was going to archive for 30 years!
Interesting that no one has picked on the one man – one vote potential court case. That could be a killer. Does no one know about it? Not even Jack with his close ties to Cato?