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.
I have visited the Middle East several times, and the Arab / Jewish conflict is very much like the Black / White conflict in the United States. It is primarily a cultural divide.
Paul C. Schulte
1, November 1, 2015 at 1:34 pm
po – now you are just being silly.
—————————————
Paul, Just trying to even up the playing field 🙂
David, We small biz owners realize the govt. is not our friend. I taught my kids, when a politician from EITHER party says they care about small biz, safe bet is they’re lying. Don’t you love being lectured to by people who have never run a business!
And if that ain’t enough, David, here is a wiki entry under Zionist political violence (also known as terrorism)
———————————————
Zionist political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Zionists.
Actions have been carried out by individuals and Jewish paramilitary groups such as the Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach as part of a conflict between Jews, British authorities, and Palestinian Arabs, regarding land, immigration, and control over Palestine.[1]
British soldiers and officials, United Nations personnel, Palestinian Arab fighters and civilians, and Jewish fighters and civilians have been targets or victims of these actions. Domestic, commercial, and government property, infrastructure, and material have also been attacked.
During the 1920 Nebi Musa riots, the 1921 Jaffa riots and the 1929 Palestine riots, Palestinian Arabs manifested hostility against zionist immigration, which provoked the reaction of Jewish militias.[2] In 1935, the Irgun, a Zionist underground military organization, split off from the Haganah.[3] The Irgun were the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as “every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arab and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state”.[4]
During the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine, Palestinian Arabs fought for the end of the Mandate and the creation of an Arab state based on the whole of Palestine. They attacked both British and Jews as well as some Palestinian Arabs who supported a Pan-Arabism. Mainstream Zionists, represented by the Vaad Leumi and the Haganah, practiced the policy of Havlagah (restraint), while Irgun militants did not follow this policy and called themselves “Havlagah breakers.”[5] The Irgun began bombing Palestinian Arab civilian targets in 1938.[3] While the Palestinian Arabs were “carefully disarmed” by the British Mandatory authorities by 1939, the Zionists were not.[3]
After the beginning of World War II, the Haganah and Irgun suspended their activity against the British in support of their war against Nazi Germany.[6] The smaller Lehi continued anti-British attacks and direct action throughout the war. At that time, the British also supported the creation and the training of Palmach, as a unit that could withstand a German offensive in the area, with the consent of Yishuv which saw an opportunity to get trained units and soldiers for the planned Jewish state[7] and during 1944–1945, the most mainstream Jewish paramilitary organization, Haganah, cooperated with the British authorities against the Lehi and Etzel.[8]
After World War II, between 1945 and the 29 November 1947 Partition vote, British soldiers and policemen were targeted by Irgun and Lehi. Haganah and Palmah first collaborated with the British against them, particularly during the Hunting Season, before actively joining them in the Jewish Resistance Movement, then finally choosing an official neutral position after 1946 while the Irgun and the Lehi went on their attacks against the British.[9]
The Haganah carried out violent attacks in Palestine, such as the liberation of interned immigrants from the Atlit camp, the bombing of the country’s railroad network, sabotage raids on radar installations and bases of the British Palestine police. It also continued to organize illegal immigration.[10]
In February 1947, the British announced that they would end the mandate and withdraw from Palestine and they asked the arbitration of the United Nations. After the vote of the Partition Plan for Palestine on 30 November 1947, civil war broke out in Palestine. Jewish and Arab communities fought each other violently in campaigns of attacks, retaliations and counter-retaliations which provoked around 800 deaths after two months. Arab volunteers entered Palestine to fight alongside the Palestinian Arabs. In April, 6 weeks before the termination of the Mandate, the Jewish militias launched wide operations to control the territory dedicated to them by the Partition Plan.[11] Many atrocities occurred during this time. The Arab population in the mixed cities of Tiberias, Safed, Haifa, Jaffa, Beisan and Acre and in the neighbouring villages fled or were expelled during this period. During the Battle for Jerusalem (1948) where the Jewish community of 100,000 people was besieged, most Arab villages of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem corridor were captured by Jewish militias and leveled.[12]
At the beginning of the civil war, the Jewish militias organized several bombing attacks against civilians and military Arab targets. On 12 December, Irgun placed a car bomb opposite the Damascus Gate, killing 20 people.[13] On 4 January 1948, the Lehi detonated a lorry bomb against the headquarters of the paramilitary Najjada located in Jaffa’s Town Hall, killing 15 Arabs and injuring 80.[13][14] During the night between 5 and 6 January, the Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem that had been reported to hide Arab militiamen, killing 24 people.[15] The next day, Irgun members in a stolen police van rolled a barrel bomb[16] into a large group of civilians who were waiting for a bus by the Jaffa Gate, killing around 16.[17] Another Irgun bomb went off in the Ramla market on February 18, killing 7 residents and injuring 45.[18] On 28 February, the Palmah organised a bombing attack against a garage at Haifa, killing 30 people.[19]
Hannah Arendt, Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein and others letter
Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments, and in media such as The New York Times newspaper,[20][21] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.[22] In 1946, The World Zionist Congress strongly condemned terrorist activities in Palestine and “the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare”. Irgun was specifically condemned.[23]
Menachem Begin was called a terrorist and a fascist by Albert Einstein and 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals in a letter to the New York Times which was published on December 4, 1948. Specifically condemned was the participation of the Irgun in the Deir Yassin massacre:[24]
po – this raises an interesting question. Were those ‘volunteers’ who joined the Arabs all uniformed? It is hard to fight a civil war when everyone is in mufti.
Paul is that a question or a statement?
po – I realize that English is not your first language, however, there is a question, followed by a statement. Does that help?
Sorry, Paul, I can handle only one at a time, either a question or a statement.
po – now you are just being silly. 🙂
And David, I know that Christian evangelism props up zionism, for it believes that Jesus (AS) won’t return until the Jews control all of Palestine…you are missing the point however that by blinding your sight to the injustice that is put upon the palestinians, and supporting Israel wholeheartedly, you are actively and hypocritically going against Jesus (AS) message!
I can give you a great number of sources that contradict everything you said, using only the words of Israeli Jews, some of them actual Zionists, however, I’ll offer this sole one, for it addresses EXACTLY your ahistorical claim.
Slyvestere
1, November 1, 2015 at 10:18 am
Ari
Your contribution was exceptional and I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is extraordinary that we were so lucky to have a commenter attending the event.
—————————————————-
Ari, I too commend you for your testimony. In a fair and rational realm, the testimony of a live witness, from a Christian especially should be testimony enough. The fact that it is challenged by suppositions and fallacies by people who weren’t even there speaks volume about the irrationality of this realm.
Ari
Your contribution was exceptional and I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is extraordinary that we were so lucky to have a commenter attending the event.
Threads, particularly ones on hot button issues, will careen. We can all hope that means there is an exchange of ideas and information going on and not too much screaming at “you people”. Better than suppressed speech, right?
Thanks again for your valuable contribution.
I agree with what Darren said at October 31, 2015 at 11:36 pm. This thread is trash and a long way from the topic of silencing Christian speech, which did NOT occur at the demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan, no matter what a court or anyone else has said. I could care less what others think of my opinion, it is still mine. I am sorry I joined the thread at all…stupid of me to think being an actual live witness to something, about 2 blocks from my home, repeatedly over 2-3 years of disruption by pseudo-Christian agitators, would matter much. Maybe next time I’ll take more video and record more of the lovely “Christian” speech & vulgarities…oh, wait, there won’t be a “next time”…the ethnic festival has been suppressed successfully. Mission accomplished.
Aridog, I appreciated reading your comments as a neighbor there who witnessed what happened there.
Being a witness does not mean that your free speech analysis is correct. I have seen many people cheer when a speaker they disagree with is led away in handcuffs. So while we disagree upon what constitutes free speech, I do appreciate very much hearing your perspective.
These kinds of events happen in many communities, and the event organizers think they can take public space and convert it to their own private use. That is simply wrong. Public space is public space. I support the idea of the festival continuing, but if they use public space for their event, then they need to follow our Constitution and the laws regarding freedom of speech. They need to be more loving and tolerant of those seeking to express a different viewpoint in public space.
David:
I doubt you are capable of seeing truth and reality, even if you were willing to. All the troubles this nation faces emanate from the rightwing of our political spectrum.
“These policies worked under Ronald Reagan. Mostly, though, it is just common sense. Where does the money come from to drive the economy? Does it come from government or from private enterprise? The money comes from private enterprise. So the less regulations and less taxes the government takes, the stronger the economic engine is. This is what made America blossom in its early history. America did not have the baggage of big government.
Who’s pushing ideology, David? Not only is the above quote of your sloppy, it isn’t even true.
Yes, the tax rate for top earners was nearly halved to 28% in the final year of his presidency, a parting gift to his backers and handlers. Unfortunately, that tax cut left his successor, George H. W. Bush, in the position of having to raise taxes, which hurt him politically. Reagan also left behind $220 Billion in debt and a nationwide bank scandal which could’ve served as Exhibit A in the case against deregulation.
The truth is that cutting tax rates at the top encourages business owners to shrink their businesses by taking money out of their businesses in the form of profit instead of reinvesting it. Higher tax rates encourages business owners to use revenue to expand their businesses rather than pay the taxes on it. That’s how real job creation is achieved, and it adds skilled, higher wage jobs rather than the type of low-skilled minimum wage jobs that are being added today. Cutting the tax rate at the top encourages the type of vulture capitalism we see from Mitt Romney and his ilk,where jobs are eliminated and everything is sold off to overseas buyers.
Also, jobs were added to the economy during Reagan’s presidency largely as a result of falling interest rates, which were skyhigh during the Carter administration and the tremendous deficit spending spree that the Reagan administration went on. Reagan’s deficit spending is actually proof that Keynesian economics works.
Moreover, you fail to show that the the 19th century was in any way better economically than the 1950’s and early sixties, when the labor force became more organized. It was the freedom to form unions and bargain with employers that has had a larger impact on improving the economy in this country.
No doubt you’ll reply with some tumbling exercises to try and show that the economic failures that resulted from the rightwing policies are the fault of the Democrats. We need a good laugh.
T. Hall wrote: “Unfortunately, that tax cut left his successor, George H. W. Bush, in the position of having to raise taxes, which hurt him politically. Reagan also left behind $220 Billion in debt and a nationwide bank scandal which could’ve served as Exhibit A in the case against deregulation.”
Bush did not have to raise taxes. He did that under pressure from all the corrupt politicians who want more money to spend. Revenues went up. Yes, the debt also went up under Reagan, but it set the stage for an economy that actually balanced the budget under President Clinton and a Republican controlled Congress that was not afraid to shut down the government.
T. Hall wrote: “The truth is that cutting tax rates at the top encourages business owners to shrink their businesses by taking money out of their businesses in the form of profit instead of reinvesting it. Higher tax rates encourages business owners to use revenue to expand their businesses rather than pay the taxes on it. That’s how real job creation is achieved, and it adds skilled, higher wage jobs rather than the type of low-skilled minimum wage jobs that are being added today.”
I am a business owner. If my tax bill dropped, I would immediately hire another employee. Please explain to me the logic of how raising taxes makes businesses hire more employees. That makes no sense unless maybe the business owners you are thinking of are just swimming in more money than they know what to do with.
I could give you example after example from job interviews that I conduct of what has caused people applying for jobs today having no work ethic. I would start with people turning down a job offer because their unemployment benefits were just increased (this was during Obama’s previous term).
T. Hall wrote: “Moreover, you fail to show that the the 19th century was in any way better economically than the 1950’s and early sixties, when the labor force became more organized. It was the freedom to form unions and bargain with employers that has had a larger impact on improving the economy in this country.”
When you claim unions made America great, I think of places like Detroit and Dearborn Michigan. You sure you want to go there?
Darren
I very much regret using the well worn cliche ‘curl up and die’ and the blog would ‘die’. It was an unfortunate choice of words, and as I said, I very much regret using them. Please give Annie a break. She just was riffing off my lazy and inartful language. NO one wishes you any harm and we are all grateful for all your contributions.
Best regards
These are your words, Annie.
“He may just have to die then”
referring to me.
THall
Well, if kindly Pope Francis runs into trouble, I’m voting for YOU. I bow before your better nature and formidable debating skills. You make reading here much more interesting and it would be a shame to have you disappear.
BUT, for god’s sake, wear a helmet!
Annie,
Your suggestion that I need to die is completely and totally unacceptable. You WILL refrain from making such statements toward me and any other commenter or poster at this forum. Nobody here is to be made subject to that kind of unhinged treatment and no matter how you attempt to justify this, especially by declaring that others are worse. It is meritless.
That type of statement by you or anyone else here stops now.
All: Aside from his contributions as a guest blogger, Darren performs vital maintenance tasks for the blog without which, it simply wouldn’t operate as smoothly as we’ve come to expect.
There should be little doubt that he understands the cause of all our complaints. But he also understands the standards that Turley wants to maintain and is simply trying to keep the threads from getting completely off track. He’s not taking sides; his admonitions are made in the interest of the blog.
So please, I ask you to show him some forbearance.
That said, the comment I posted above was not uncivil, nor was it immature. It was a an intellectual analysis of someone who has made himself the a topic of concern many times through his churlish attacks; his angry tone; his less than mature comments upon our opinions; and the disrespectful, often uncivil remarks he lobs at us.
I join my fellow posters who find it puzzling that one particular participant can regularly engage in uncivil, profane, and hostile behavior without receiving any notice from authority.
I will endeavor to ignore this participants boorishness going and will try to engage him on a civil basis.
Annie
This place would die without you. Really. Nick would curl up and die if he didn’t have you to berate, a few liberals to scream at. What the heck would KC have to say without Sexy Jewish Women visiting the blog?
They’d all be bored as hell if they only had each other to speak to.
this reminds me of mom getting on me, and me responding: “Ma, that’s unfair, you always get on me only…”.
She responded: ” because you are the only one i can reason with.”
I am thinking Darren tries to reason with the liberals because those are the only ones he can expect to be able to reason with.
I mean, do we really think he can reason with Nick…or Paul?
JT also called Sherman a thug. I also think that was a mistaken characterization for what was an excited jubilant victory brag. That’s what professional athletes do. Should JT get a helmet?
JT is sometimes mistaken.
There certainly is something that is bothering JT about anti-blasphemy laws and I wish I knew about the FULL history of that issue. The FULL history is not forthcoming on this blog. The media is not, and has not, as far as I can recall, bellowing for any disclosure. I am skeptical about this issue and Obama’s role and if he is backing such laws, I would like to hear his reasoning.
I am a liberal. JT is not. JT is an advocate for the Republican house. My opposition to some of his positions should not be surprising or unexpected.
You’re not in favor of us all marching in lock-step, are you?
In the future, I hope you will be more respectful of Annie. You could start by calling her by Annie.
Best regards
Nick
JT has also posted that Hillary faces criminal charges. That is not true. JT is sometimes mistaken.
Why is it that the commenters who are not of ‘respectful and proper discourse’ all happen to be the two or three only commenters who are liberals?
Darren, I’m not sure what is required of respectful and proper discourse? I thought the requirement was that we not swear or use crude language and avoid insulting other commenters. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument or accusation launched at us. Am I mistaken?
Darren
Have you read the very fine Mein Kampf thread? Annie did some very fine work there and often posts valuable information, insights, and opinions. The Mein Kampf was most certainly was not banal. Several people did very fine work there. Work which the Professor should be proud. I think you are very mistaken.
You have just spoken to me as if I was a child sitting in a high school classroom. I am offended. I have not been uncivil or used crude language.
What is my offense?