"Bible Believers" Group Wins Free Speech Case
Awful initial response from government -- blaming people using constitutionally protected speech because those hearing the speech reacted in a criminally violent way.
From a Detroit News story by Robert Snell:
In 2012, Bible Believers were pelted with rocks during the Arab International Festival and Wayne County authorities threatened to ticket the evangelists because they were concerned about safety.
This behavior didn't come out of nowhere. The backwardness that is Islam calls for Muslims to be violent and even kill those who "insult" the religion.
The rest of the story:
Christian evangelists who were kicked out of an Arab-American street festival in 2012 after carrying a pig's head and telling Dearborn Muslims they would "burn in hell" won their federal appeal Monday and will be awarded damages.The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, reaffirmed the boundaries of the First Amendment, saying the evangelist group Bible Believers should have been protected even though its speech was loathsome and intolerant. The opinion also highlighted the obligation of law enforcement and public officials when confronted with constitutionally protected speech that threatens to incite violence.
"Bearing in mind the interspersed surges of ethnic, racial, and religious conflict that from time to time mar our national history, the constitutional lessons to be learned from the circumstances of this case are both timeless and markedly seasonable," Judge Eric Clay wrote.
The opinion by the full appeals court Wednesday overturned a lower-court judgment and sent the case back to federal court in Detroit, where a judge will calculate damages and other relief.
The case against Wayne County, Sheriff Benny Napoleon and members of the department, originally was handled in Detroit by U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan, who recently retired.
The court Wednesday concluded law enforcement personnel made "next to no attempt...to protect the Bible Believers or prevent the lawless actions of the audience."
I am an atheist and find god belief of any stripe gullible and silly. But this country was founded on very important freedoms, including freedom of speech. That must be protected, and those whose religion calls for violence against the free-speaking are the ones who need to be dealt with by the police when they bring their medieval practice of stoning to this country.
Carrying a pigs head could be inciting a riot. A poster saying "Repent" is different.
Think the cops should not be placed in harm's way and should not have to decide whether a line has been crossed.
Your right to say something does not mean you can incite a riot.
Calling for "dead cops" should have been called out by Obama. Their (#BLM) points can easily be made w/o that. Calling for dead cops (blacks, Jews, etc.) is something else and he knows it.
Bob in Texas at October 29, 2015 10:15 AM
MLK, Letter From Birmingham Jail. "In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."
Though I have little sympathy for Muslims, I can't really get behind Christians taunting crowds of them with a pig's head. But still I think there's a valuable principle in MLK's reasoning that's applicable here. As distasteful as marching around with a pig's head may be, they had the right to do it. Muslims don't have a right to physically assault and stone people they disagree with. Even though suppressing and expelling the Christians was safer and easier for cops, it should have been the Muslims' violent behavior that was suppressed.
The government's responsibility to protect your freedom to oppose someone else's ideas shouldn't depend on your relative ability to inflict greater violence and damage.
Ken R at October 29, 2015 9:54 PM
The response to any speech you disagree with (even as offensive as showing a pig's head to those who don't eat pork) is NOT to throw stones.
Point, laugh, ridicule, sure, have at it. But, to respond with violence is not, and should not be acceptable.
Sorry, Bob, but, this isn't "inciting a riot." For goodness sake, just NOT being Muslim is enough to incite a riot with that crowd.
If insulting someone's religion is inciting a riot then why didn't Christians riot when the Brooklyn Museum showed the "Piss Christ"? Why didn't Catholics riot when they had the elephant dung Madonna? Why don't they riot at St. Patrick's in New York during the Gay Pride parade when some of the parade participants moon or flip the bird at the church as they walk by?
If arresting these "riot inciters" was the correct response then why not use the same response for the Westboro Baptist folks when they show up at funerals?
This case is a win for free speech. The police have the duty to protect you, even if your speech is tasteless or offensive.
charles at October 30, 2015 7:23 AM
So now cops have to take the rocks in the head (at tax payer expense) for a protest that could have been less "in your face".
Permit should have required much more physical space between the combatants.
Bob in Texas at October 30, 2015 8:42 AM
Cops do not have a duty to protect. Arrest yes.
Bob in Texas at October 30, 2015 8:44 AM
Leave a comment