Free speech is either for all people or no one.
"Free speech is either for all people or no one."
Does "free speech" mean the freedom to intimidate and harass? How do you ensure free speech and free assembly for one group without hampering the free speech and free assembly for another?
Lets move beyond platitudes.
Read the Skokie decision that forced Skokie, Illinois to allow the Nazis to hold a march there. The courts have already decided the issue.
But allowing a march isn't the issue here. The issue is if one group can legally harass another group on State property under the guise of "free speech".
Under the law, the Nazis (or any other unsavory group) can apply to hold an event at the park. But the Nazis can't just crash an outdoor pre-approved Jewish event at the park and "preach" to them without a permit. The Christians in this suit are seeking to change that law.
Based on some of the quotes from the website and the fact that they have a whole page devoted to explaining how to best deal with the police (not to mention the general tone of that page), this strikes me as a group that not only expects confrontation, but goes looking for it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they might even create it from time to time.
On the topic of their advice for dealing with police, I find it interesting that the first item listed is "always treat the police with respect." Does this mean they have no problem treating other individuals disrespectfully?
"Does this mean they have no problem treating other individuals disrespectfully?"
Seems pretty clear that is the case.
They should absolutely be allowed public space for free speech. The whole point is it is public space ("State property," as you say) and should absolutely be the preserve of public speech, no matter how messy or contentious. There is no evidence of "chilling effect."
Harrassment should not be allowed, and the law is certainly entitled to delineate between free speech and harrassment, and does, by forbidding amplification, and protecting physical space. Laws against assault are enough to prevent "free speech" from being allowed to get right into my face.
Yes, the Klan has the right to free speech at MLK events and anti-racist groups have the right to free speech at Klan gatherings. And both groups already exercise that right. Goddess bless America.
I think the notion of "free speech" is so strong here that we are ignoring some of the facts of this case.
Facts:
The Pagans had a permit to assemble at the park in question.
The Christian group did not bother to seek a permit to protest the Pagan gathering, nor did they seek a permit to assemble nearby.
The Christians did not assemble in a separate area of the park or on the sidewalk. They assembled right next to the gathering (after visiting it).
The Christians were allowed to attend the Pagan event and interacted with the Pagans. The cops were not called until harassment started. The Christians continued to "preach" at the Pagans, even after a cop told them to quiet down.
"Yes, the Klan has the right to free speech at MLK events and anti-racist groups have the right to free speech at Klan gatherings. And both groups already exercise that right. Goddess bless America."
In most of those cases both groups apply for permits to assemble. They are given guidelines for interaction, and in most cases police are called out to enforce boundaries.
In THIS case, the opposing group felt they don't need a permit and since they didn't follow this procedure they positioned themselves where-ever they liked in whatever manner they liked with no oversight by police officials.
That isn't mere free speech, that is a clear case of intent to harass.
The problem is that the courts set precedents in making determinations, and those precedents are later used to make other determinations.
Requiring permits, and then restricting access to those permits, is a long-standing tactic of the opponents of free speech. Here in New York it is the favorite tactic of the NYC police department to quell left-wing protest; many left-leaning groups are completely unable to get permits for public assembly even when trying for years.
Oh, and if the courts choose to say that this is harrassment because of physical behavior, I'm okay with that. I'm just not okay with them restricting speech based solely on permits. Speech should not require permits or polite locations.
The Skokie decision says that if the city permits any one group to hold a parade it must allow allow any other group that wants to hold a parade and will abide by the same rules as "time, place and manner" to also have a parade. It doesn't mean the Nazis have the right to have their parade at any date and place they choose and it certainly doesn't mean they have a right to parade on the same day -- for example -- the B'nai B'rith had previously gotten a permit for a parade, or that they have right to disrupt the B'nai B'rith parade. That said, I would like to believe that Pagans are slower to invoke such sanctions than others, and the Grand Rapids Pagans were under attack before they called the police.
There's a Libertarian saying that I'm thinking of: one's liberties end where another's begin.
Harassment is not free speech, because it impinges upon the right of others to speak freely.
The question would then be, was what went on harassment? I wasn't there, but if they behaved the way I've seen most of these types of groups do on TV or read about in the news, then yes, it was harassment... and not protected, IMHO.
This sounds an awful lot like the following case:
Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, No. 05-05287 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 18, 2007).
Philly Pride Presents, Inc., a private not-for profit corporation, organized a gay pride event (“OutFest”), a downtown street festival held in the City of Philadelphia. It obtained a permit from the City, and the event was free and open to the public. However, Philly Pride expressed concern that the plaintiffs, members of a conservative Christian group who believed homosexuality was a sin, would attend and protest, detracting from the gay pride message, and asked city officials to exclude the plaintiffs from the event. The City instructed police officers at the event to “protect the First Amendment rights of everyone at the event” and to allow protesters to attend. Philly Pride, in turn, organized a “human buffer zone” to prevent the plaintiffs from entering. Police ordered these volunteers to step aside and allow the plaintiffs into the event, and threatened them with arrest for noncompliance. The plaintiffs, for their part, were told to move because they were blocking access. Thirty minutes into their attendance, the plaintiffs were arrested and taken into custody for failing to obey police orders. All criminal charges were ultimately dismissed. In the ensuing Section 1983 action against the City and Philly Pride, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. “There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person,” and the organizers of the expressive, permitted event had a right to exclude those bearing contrary messages. The City imposed reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. While content-neutrality governed the granting of permits, “issued permits can be enforced to protect the permitted message even if this excludes other messages. This enforces the very purpose behind permitting schemes – to enable the expression of a particular message. In other words, an administrative permit scheme must be capable of enforcement.” (Here, the validity of the permitting scheme itself was not in issue.) Further, the City did not exclude plaintiffs’ “counter-speech” from OutFest or impose a “heckler’s veto”; the plaintiffs were only excluded when they blocked access and disobeyed direct orders from police officers seeking to keep the peace. Finally, the plaintiffs had alternative channels or means to communicate their message. They were free to apply for a permit to organize their own expressive event.
Therefore, if the reasoning in the above case is correct, the Christians in this case do not have a First Amendment right to hold a rally without a permit at a pagan rally where a permit was properly acquired.
Thanks Z!
That was very informative and seems especially relevant to this case!
Sounds like the reporter was sympathetic to to the fascists. Having work in propaganda dissection and spreading of disinformation it looks as though the newspaper probably owned by people with strong religious beliefs will play this as political correctness gone wrong. That christians have a good rep when it comes to civil liberties look at Dr. King and a fascist police department over reacted by threatening and harassing peaceful protestors. It will never be discussed that protesting at another religions festitval is cheap, disgusting and intolerant because the editor that department obviously does not view paganism as a legit religion when one analyzeses the language and imagery used in the piece.
" But the Nazis can't just crash an outdoor pre-approved Jewish event at the park and "preach" to them without a permit. The Christians in this suit are seeking to change that law."
Perhaps not- but if the Nazis were having their annual picnic, it would be perfectly acceptable for protesters to turn up, as long as they were peacable and didn't disrupt speakers. It's the hazard of every public event- and I was myself a protester at many neonazi "may day" events. It's incumbent on the city to maintain seperation between disagreeing parties if things get rough, but they can't eject protesters. The right of free expression IS a right and supercedes anyone's 'right' to a carefree afternoon- whther religiously oriented or not. If you want peace, you need private property. the public forum has to be open to everyone, annoying or not.
I'm ALL in favor of protest. But I'm not in favor of protest at the expense of protecting free assembly.
Harassment is not simply annoying, it is frightning and debilitating. You said as long as it "didn't disrupt speakers" Well that's well and good except in this case they physically and verbily intimidated people there. Witnesses say a girl was circled and forced to tears. They were not simply coming around, handing out bibles and kindly asking for a moment of their time to discuss religion. They were there to start shit.
Keep kicking ass, Jas. Anyone who claims this kind of shit is free speech is missing the point, period. If the "Christian" group (and I use this term loosely as this group in no way resembles people truly attempting to follow Christ's teachings) had protested politely, help up signs, talk to folks, not block others from attending, etc that's one thing, as you and others have clearly said. Visciously trying to shut down the free speech of others and practicing harrasment, hate speech and intimidation is another. Nothing to argue. Thanks for posting this. I hope you keep us posted on how the case turns out.
This situation bears watching for one simple reason. Every community holds a "National Day of Prayer" every year. These events are billed as "ecumenical." Which of course they are, if you pray to the popular god.
"National Day of Prayer" would be a perfect opportunity to turn the tables on these Christian fascists by having pagans assemble as close by as they can get, and launch into a loud and earnest ritual -- with no disrespect to the other side, but with clear intent to be heard.
Jason, Deborah is correct. I am one of the "intimidating" street preachers that was at Richmond park. Look, you all have gotten your views on Christianity from TV and from 95% of folks out there that don't know their Bibles "from a hole in the ground". The devils have made The Lord Jesus Christ into some limp-wristed, effeminate puke that just wants us to love the wicked that hates righteousness. No, Jesus never changed from being the Jehovah God of the old testiment. He still hates the wicked that rejects Him and is "angry with the wicked every day".
And as far as free speech goes in this nation, I wouldn't be in favor for taking away your freedoms as much as I
wouldn't want you to take my freedom to serve God. If you want to take my freedom away, then you better not complain when your freedom goes away too.
P.S. If any of you felt intimidated, etc. That was not our purpose or our desire but if God Himself wants you to be intimidated, it's probably because you all have rejected His only offer of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
We're merely the messengers...
Curt, I dare say that that "95%" you mention above probably know the Bible as well or better than you. I gained my views on Christianity from my Christian upbringing and Church.
I suggest to you that you practice Luke 6:42 before attempting to preach again.
In our forums at Cypress Nemeton, we are working on forming a national organization to provide security at pagan events. A decent pagan security contingent could have gathered useful evidence for this case. Drop by if you are interested.
Commenting by HaloScan
