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.
Berets! Black skin! Boots! Sunglasses! Terrifying!
Gotta run home and get my AK15 and my Glock.
I don’t know how you inner city people manage to climb out of bed everyday facing such mayhem.
Take it up with DavidM regarding your new favorite word ‘spurious’. He is the one that suggests police forces adopting Islamic policies that are anti-free speech and anti-American
David’s buddy, the street preacher calls the Catholic Church the “harlot”. Isn’t that special?
The good news is that Ben Field’s is OUT of that job. He can now concentrate on his strength training and selling roids.
po
We don’t want no friggin’ mosques. We don’t want no friggin’ Arab Festivals. We don’t want no Muslims.
We’re America! Land of the Free! Home of the Brave!
Just no friggin’ foreigners. And surely no friggin’ foreigners who don’t like hecklers.
But the good news is we are ALL for free speech! Also, we are VERY big on the 2nd Amendment. And while we may be screwing you a bit on the free speech part, there is still time to partake of that good old 2nd amendment part. Nothing violent, mind you. Oh why even mention it. We all know guns aren’t intended for any violent acts.
Welcome to America.
Land of the Insane.
‘the authority structure is shifting and it is clear that the police force has started adopting Islamic policies which are anti-free speech and anti-American’ DavidM
Got that, folks?
Our police forces are being overtaken by the Muslims! Well! I’m glad we settled THAT!
Maybe that why Officer Ben Fields was anti-free speech and anti-American..
Slyvester – Ben Fields’ job was to get the young lady out of the classroom. Your charges are spurious.
David is just a nice normal guy that videotapes protests outside mosques. Who doesn’t want to spend their days doing that?
Nice normal activity.
David, what do you think of Pam Geller?
Slyvester wrote: “David is just a nice normal guy that videotapes protests outside mosques. Who doesn’t want to spend their days doing that? Nice normal activity.”
Well, at one time I was a public access producer in Tampa. I had a press pass and produced a weekly television series called, Community In Crisis. Yeah, videotaping community events was pretty normal for me.
see that picture of the 2 black panthers before a polling place?
THAT is what terrifies Dusty. The damn guys didn’t even have a gun and she is terrified. What is it that terrifies her? Black skin? Berets? Camo?
What state is Wayne County located? Or, where the frig did this happen?
haha, DBQ, 2 frumpy looking, unarmed black guys vs hundred of armed, fearful, ignorant, mostly white people who are too ignorant of their own holy book to realize that that by protesting Islam they are actually going against their own holy teachings!
Read this http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_9.htm, then read the Quran, and you’ll see that Jesus (peace be upon him) and Muhamad (peace be upon him) said the same thing.
Oh, ignorance, oh bigotry, when you have us into your clutches…
“How many times heavily armed individuals in fatigues stood before mosques trying to intimidate the worshipers? Terrorism by any other shade?”
You mean like this??
http://mije.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/full_column/u582/blackpanthers_security.jpg
Nice to see that DavidM is slowly dropping the pretense of fairness and agnosticism… tell me whom you hang out with…
po wrote: “Nice to see that DavidM is slowly dropping the pretense of fairness and agnosticism…”
I certainly always strive to be objective and fair, but never have I ever pretended to be agnostic. I have always made it clear that I am a theist. No equivocation about that ever.
Sylvester,
I cannot ensure you that I wouldn’t lose my cool. I can only ensure you that losing my cool would be the violation of the law, not their offending speech.
Well that’s good, Jack. I’m glad that I can be assured that when the next big Westwood Church crazies show up to your Dad’s, or your uncle’s, or your son’s, or your daughter’s funeral and start marching across the street singing and chanting and waving pikes with vet’s head on them you will keep your cool. And be glad you live in America.
And you won’t be thinking anything about that old 2nd amendment, will ya?
It is foolish to argue with David. David has shared with us that he stands on street corners and preaches.
He is friends with the crazy Ruben guy. He thinks the housepainter is to be admired. David thinks these guys are terrific.
David is not sure women should vote. David is not sure much of anyone should vote. This is not a guy one should spend much time.
“You have any problem with the crazy westwood church showing up at vets funerals? You all for that?”
I have a big problem with that. I’m a veteran. However, as long as they stay on public property and don’t resort to violence, I put up with it. As the Court said (above) “But, in a free society, all sects and factions, as the price of their own freedom to preach their views, must suffer that freedom in others.”
Sylvester,
Things have been controversial since before this good ole USA ever existed. Religion, Contraception, Alcohol use, etc have all been things in which many people disagree.
Don’t like a lady on your front porch? Just post a no trespassing sign and the law will help you. Throw a bottle at the lady, and you will be in the wrong.
None of this is very difficult.
please close the link on your logical fallacies page and give it a rest, David.
One only has to look at the ridiculous claims or persecution by all the fake christians to see it’s not a red herring. They complain about their ten commandments being taken down from government property, they whine about prayer in school and at other public/government locations, they pretend there is a war on Christmas if anyone dare say “happy holidays” to them. And they have the gall to say THEY are being harassed when they are not allowed to discriminate against others at their whim. So no, it is not a red herring, sorry.
Yes indeedy, I thought so. These are the goons who stand outside of Catholic Churches and heckle Catholics as they go to Mass. What wonderful “Christians” “Bible believers”, what a joke.
http://youtu.be/H3YaYQQt-qg
Jack
You have any problem with the crazy westwood church showing up at vets funerals? You all for that?