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.
T. Hall,
Saying that someone is ignorant, when their own statements betray their lack of subject matter knowledge, may be rude, but it would be nonetheless a reasonable observation. In addition to comment with authority when the facts prove the person to lack sufficient knowledge is also rude.
When one demonstrates ignorance, they should be called ignorant. The fact that they don’t like to be called ignorant should serve as incentive to not continue along the same path.
There were some Nazi’s from Chicago, Milwaukee, and nationwide who marched in Skokie. Their intent was to agitate, mock, and bait. Jews did not take the bait. Many here take bait like fish in a hatchery! LOL.
Along w/ the Constitution ignorance, reading skills are poor as well.
It’s ignorant to complain about visual aids in a debate. Lord knows some folks need them to understand the argument at hand.
Jews did not riot when Nazi’s, wearing the Swastika, goose stepping, and carrying the Nazi flag, marched through Skokie.
No one thinks JT approves of these fools. To suggest that was ever a part of the argument is ignorant. The argument is that the Arab Fair participants were denied THEIR First Amendments rights due to these fringe evangelicals. Aridog spelled out exactly how this came to be. Go back and read his comments about the prohibitive cost of providing security to protect these loony protesters.
Annie wrote: “The argument is that the Arab Fair participants were denied THEIR First Amendments rights due to these fringe evangelicals. Aridog spelled out exactly how this came to be. Go back and read his comments about the prohibitive cost of providing security to protect these loony protesters.”
That argument is spurious because there is no obligation to provide security for protesters. The security they do have, however, should not be used to silence free speech activity. THAT IS THE ARGUMENT.
You can tell when some of the 1st Amendment haters are losing, they start posting large pictures. I think JT may have put an end to the Cartoon Network, which was part of their Middle School repertoire. We’ll find out shortly.
This thread is astounding. You can tell that public education has numbed the minds and failed to teach the fundamentals of the Constitution. WTF do you think was the reasoning for Nazi’s marching in SKOKIE?? For those not familiar, Skokie is a city just north of Chicago, w/ many Holocaust survivors. It has a large Jewish population. The ACLU hated having to do it, but they were compelled to represent the Nazi’s to allow them to march. You don’t have to be a good Christian to express your 1st Amendment rights. You don’t even have to be a US citizen.
The 1st Amendment is under assault and it is those IGNORANT of the Constitution that is leading the charge. Does anyone here think JT likes what these protesters are doing? Does anyone here have more Constitutional chops than JT. This is why I came here, JT is the real deal, I wonder why the hell many of you ignoramus came here. Well, I know why one of you came!
“Calling someone ignorant because you disagree with them is an indictment upon yourself.”
Hear hear!
Jack: There are a number of things of which I am ignorant, and there are various subjects upon which I have imperfect knowledge to go along with the many things that I know well.
What separates me from the fools is that my mind is accessible to reasoning, and I am not only willing to admit when I am wrong, I am able to admit when someone is right rather than doubling down on my ignorance. And I try not to be petty.
For instance, Schulte might be a smart guy, but it can be hard to gauge sometimes because his skill in debate isn’t strong enough to fully convey it. Calling someone ignorant because you disagree with them is an indictment upon yourself.
Hall – the following paragraph shows gross ignorance on the part of its writer, Slyvester.
This is for the benefit of T.Hall
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” – Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
•”The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” – Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota)
•”Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.
•”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” – Thomas Jefferson
•”What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, his family, and his freedom.” – Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Preface, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”
Annie: It’s almost certainly uncivil to call someone ignorant, but only the arbiter can make that determination. But Nick isn’t here.
It’s so much more satisfying to prove their ignorance, either with the perfect citation or with their own statements, not that they’d believe either one.
But some of these guys never grow tired of seeing the proof
Well Jack, I’ll say this one last thing to you, I’m not ignorant enough to continue to further engage you in dialog.
Annie, Would you say that you are quite ignorant of many things too?
Oh Jack I agree with you, I’m sure you’re quite ignorant of many things. I’m so glad we can agree on something.
Annie, As I have stated, there are a great number of things for which I am ignorant. Proper use of the English language is not one of them.
Annie, Whenever someone makes a claim that they cannot substantiate I take great pleasure in disregarding it as total BS.
The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
Jack, yes they most certainly have been. You are obviously ignorant of this fact.
Jack, I’m sure you’ve been told you’re ignorant on more than one occasion also. So now we all know we may call each other “ignorant”.