Appeals Court: Just Because Speech Provokes Negative Reactions Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Protected
from the maybe-address-the-people-that-are-handling-the-speech-poorly dept
The best response to speech you don’t like is more speech. It definitely isn’t whatever the hell happened here. And that not only includes the Seattle Police Department’s decision to go after the person being physically harassed by other protesters, but the actions of the protesters themselves, whose physical aggression somehow encouraged police officers to start violating the First Amendment.
It’s a mess. Fortunately, this decision [PDF] from the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court cleans it up. (h/t Courthouse News Service)
The plaintiff is Matthew Meinecke, a self-described “street preacher” who lives in Seattle. On June 24, 2022, Meinecke showed up at a pro-choice protest of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. According to Meinecke, he held up a sign, read from the Bible, and handed out Christian literature.
This didn’t go well for him, according to his allegations.
Protestors surrounded Meinecke after about an hour. One protestor seized Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke retrieved another Bible from his bag and continued reading aloud. Another protestor grabbed hold of—and ripped pages from—the new Bible.
Things then escalated. Meinecke was then carried across the street by protesters. He immediately returned to where he had been standing. He was once again accosted by these protesters, who took things even further.
While people gathered on the street, however, some approached Meinecke, knocked him down, and took one of his shoes.
That’s when the Seattle PD, which had officers on the scene already due to the pro-choice protest, decided to get involved. The two parties dispute what officers actually told the street preacher. He maintains they told him to go somewhere where no one could hear or see him. The city’s lawyers claim the officers simply told Meinecke to go back across the street to where the protesters had deposited him earlier. Either way, he refused to comply and was arrested for obstruction, mainly this part of the city statute: “[i]ntentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a police officer.”
Meinecke appeared to be the only person at risk of injury, but I guess that counts under the law since it says “any person.” Despite this, he was held for two hours at the PD, but ultimately was never booked or charged.
Two days later, Meinecke did pretty much the same thing while attending the city’s PrideFest. And that incident pretty much ended up the same way.
Eventually, PrideFest attendees noticed Meinecke’s presence. As the district court found, they began “dancing near him, holding up a flag to keep people from seeing him,” and making “loud noises so he could not be heard.” According to his complaint, “a couple of attendees stood close to Meinecke and howled and barked like dogs, and mocked Meinecke, while he read passages from the Bible. Meinecke did not engage with them.” Another individual poured water on Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke kept reading aloud.
After a couple of hours, more PrideFest attendees gathered around Meinecke and began yelling. This attracted the attention of about ten law enforcement officers, who asked Meinecke “to move to a public area located outside the park.” Meinecke declined and continued to read from his Bible. A PrideFest attendee shouted at the officers, demanding Meinecke’s removal. The officers then told Meinecke “that they were imposing a ‘time, place, and manner’ restriction on him and ordered him to leave the park.” Again, Meinecke declined to leave. The officers told
Meinecke “that he was posing a risk to public safety,” and they again demanded he leave the park. Meinecke told the officers that he was not in any danger. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction.
This time, however, he was booked, charged, and released on bond. He sued the city, its PD, and the officers involved in his arrests. While Meinecke is seeking an injunction, he is not challenging the constitutionality of the law itself… just the way it was enforced against him in particular.
The Appeals Court agrees with Meinecke. These two arrests were clear violations of his First Amendment rights.
Meinecke does not bring a facial challenge to the Seattle obstruction ordinance under which he was arrested. It makes little difference to our analysis, however, that the ordinance is facially neutral. If a facially neutral statute “as read by officers on the scene[] would allow or disallow speech depending on the reaction of the audience, then the ordinance would run afoul of an independent species of prohibitions on content-restrictive regulations, often described as a First Amendment-based ban on the ‘heckler’s veto.’” Ctr. For Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 780, 787 (9th Cir. 2008). The City’s enforcement actions against Meinecke are content-based heckler’s vetoes. Our precedent on this point is clear: “The prototypical heckler’s veto case is one in which the government silences particular speech or a particular speaker ‘due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.’” Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Comm.[…]
It is apparent from the facts, including the video available from police body cameras, that the Seattle police directed Meinecke to leave the area because of the reaction his Bible-reading provoked at the Dobbs and PrideFest protests.
That’s now how it works. The hecklers don’t get to set the government’s agenda. The city argued that’s not what actually happened — that officers responded to the people responding to Meinecke’s speech with harassment, violence, and theft by deciding Meinecke was the real problem here. The city claimed this was nothing more than the usual “time, place, and manner” restrictions governments can apply when it engages in constitutional regulation of speech.
But that’s the thing: this isn’t that. This is the other thing, as the Appeals Court points out:
[I]ncanting the words “time,” “place,” and “manner” over a content-based restriction does not transmute it into one that is content neutral. The evidence in the record is indisputable that the officers curbed Meinecke’s speech because of the potential reaction of the listeners.
The city also argued that the officers’ commands would have merely inconvenienced Meinecke, rather than silenced him. Ta-da! No First Amendment violation! Wrong again, says the court:
Even assuming that the officers simply instructed Meinecke to cross the street, their directions burdened Meinecke’s speech. Meinecke had a right, just as those participating in the anti-Dobbs rally or the celebration of PrideFest, to use public sidewalks and streets for the peaceful dissemination of his views. Like the petitioners in McCullen, Meinecke “hands out literature” and “engages in conversation and answers questions” about Christianity. The evidence is even clearer as to the officers’ restrictions during PrideFest. The district court recognized that the officers “ordered him to leave the park” altogether. When the police single out a nonthreatening speaker for discipline, the government is simply choosing sides in the debate and using the obstruction statute to enforce its choice.
Back it goes to the lower court with an order to grant Meinecke’s request for an injunction. And, hopefully, this ruling will deter officers from making the same mistake in the future. As the Appeals Court notes in the decision, the officers had plenty of options when handling these two altercations and chose the worst option both times. If the city wants to enforce its obstruction statute it can still do that. It just can’t do it in a way that violates constitutional rights. And the government should never side with the hecklers and carry out their veto for them.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 9th circuit, matthew meinecke, protestors, seattle, seattle police
Comments on “Appeals Court: Just Because Speech Provokes Negative Reactions Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Protected”
If the fucking cops weren’t there in the first place, he could have been shut down immediately.
Re:
You mean, by violence on the part of the protesters who otherwise assaulted this guy? That’s a sad statement.
Re: Re:
Fuck Nazis.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. The protesters should have gone much further. Fucking stupid imaginary friend believers.
Re: Re: Re:2
Ah, the assholes who are the tools for the fascists are still partying here. Good job.
Re: Re: Re:3
Tools? Were those the same tools who led to the Roe v. Wade repeal?
No, I’ve had enough of this “you get the government you deserve” bullshit.
Re: Re:
Public speakers should know that if they want to speak on sensitive topics that they should include a bulletproof jacket, a riot helmet on loan from the local police department, and also be flanked by no fewer than two bodyguards to repel any and all assailants. Inability to afford these protections could result in the speaker being unable to speak.
The First Amendment might give you the right to speak out against government actors, but that same government will not be able to provide protection against non-government actors (i.e. private citizens) who would take violence against you.
Re: Re: Re:
“The First Amendment might give you the right to speak out against government actors, but that same government will not be able to provide protection against non-government actors (i.e. private citizens) who would take violence against you.”
Is this a joke? Yes, the First Amendment does give you the right to speak out (and no, not just against government actors). And YES the government can and should protect you from people who are being violent against you. I mean, to the extent that they should protect anybody from violence, which is usually more the threat of legal reprisal rather than active body-blocking… but still, what is your comment? I hope this is deep-cut sarcasm I’m missing.
Re: Re:
How is grabbing Bibles, pouring water on them, and/or tearing them up assault? Who’s the complainant?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Most correct
When I do things li provide information on how to defy state bans on aborton tourism and not get caught, the is first amendment protected speech
Just like 16 years ago in Usenet newsgroups when I posted advice on how USA/Australia dual nationals coujd avoid the us travel ban in Cuba by taking fights that avoid a US connecting city some Cuban exile claimed I was breaking us law when I was not
First, that advice was protected speech. Information is protected speech
Secind, I was using VPN together, so there was no way to trace me
What I do is log on the the VPN, and then start the tor browser, like I do when I post here.
Good luck trying to trace back through three tor nodes and then a VPN in a country where cooperation with American authorities ranks up there pigs flying
Just the three tor nodes will make tracing all but impossible
Re:
Fuck off.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
He’s right though. It’s a civic duty to frustrate immoral and unjust laws by any means necessary.
Re: Re: Re:
But he needs an editor. And perhaps someone to keep him on topic.
Re: Re: Re:2
My guess would be Lithium. Reads like mania.
Re: Re: Re:2
And someone to tell them that posting like a 13-year-old edgelord who thinks they’re untouchable doesn’t help them when they do make a valid point.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
And that includes advice on how to do things without getting caught
Information is protected speech. Giving advice, such as advising abortion clinics in California on jamming techniques to foil tracking.in states where abortion tourism is banned is protected speech
Merely giving that information id protected speech
Re:
Why not just stay behind 12 proxies, edgelord?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
They Might Have Had A Case
In theory, the litigant could have caused injury to Satan by reading from the Bible.
Re:
How would he injure himself by reading a book?
Re: Re:
He could get a papercut and it could get infected and he could die. He better hope he’s not wearing a Nehru jacket when he gets to Heaven, though.
Re: Re: Re:
But by being against abortion, that would make him the evil twin.
Re:
Ya know, if I didn’t know that you had your sense of humour surgically removed. I would think that’s a joke.
If they witnessed and did nothing to the people who attacked him they really should be sued.
I do not enjoy street preachers screaming, but putting your hands on them is illegal. Demanding police remove them tom a public area is illegal.
Westboro (back when it was still a thing) got rich getting idiots to touch them & no one seemed to learn for a very long time. Oh look these people wore big ass angel wings & sang loud enough to drown out the bigots. Funny how that worked so well.
Street preacher wants attention, street preacher preaches nearby, people lose their damn minds & attack him, street preacher gets paid.
You accomplished NOTHING except manage to make the street preacher richer meaning he has more free time to show up at events and get paid again. You decided he had no rights, while you were making use of those same rights to make yourself heard…
There is nothing that says you need to listen to the street preacher & if someone speaking can move you to violence perhaps the problem is you.
Re:
The sad irony of this political moment is how many times people who honestly want to oppose Fascism/Authoritarianism let passion override intellect and end up create precedent that empowers Fascists and Authoritarians.
Re: Re:
That’s certainly true, but on the other hand, if you’re sporting several broken bones and down 3 pints of blood, the most important thing on your mind isn’t $$$, it’s making damned sure that you don’t do any street preaching in that neighborhood again. Ever.
Re:
That’s how the Westboro Baptist Church operates. And it’s why protests of their bullshit don’t tend to get violent: The protestors know enough to not give those bigots any ammo for a lawsuit.
Re: Re:
Exactly.
This necronomicon reader should have wised up and realized that his kind are not welcome in a progressive society.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Lol @ “progressive”. What you have there is an in-group dreaming of dominance where they get to be the othering assholes.
You and your ilk suck as much as the preacher or (rando pick) Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Re: Re: Re:2
You know, maybe a year or two ago that would have felt insulting. But now it simply doesn’t. Not because I agree with you, but because we are sick and tired of having to defend and rationalize the way we’re born. People who sniff farts and masturbate to vore porn are fed up having to explain themselves. Fuck that! I now call for people like Arianity and Hyman Rosen to off themselves, the same way I want Rupert Murdoch to walk off a pier.
And let’s be honest, you’d rather those fuckheads walk off a pier too.
Re: Re: Re:2
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:3
WPATH Files
or
The Cass report.
Take your pick
Re: Re: Re:2
Huh… From what I can see… group one is a bunch of religious nutters trying to ban anything that disagrees with their world view. Group two is trying to allow people to read whatever they want to read, perhaps subject to actual parenting, but otherwise not subject to restrictions based on the opinions of some third party.
I’ll suggest that if you think these people are the same, you might have a problem understanding something. “I want to ban/burn this book” and “I want to have this book in my library” are not the same thing no matter how you twist things…
Re: Re: Re:3
Thank you. It is heartening to see allies of minorities like us stand up for us. Your testimony validates our existence.
Conservatives will not prevent our access to children.
Re: Re:
I used to participate in various veteran’s discussion groups around the country, and trust me, fragging the WBC was not viewed as a joke in passing. They’ll never know just how close they came to extinction, more than once, I can assure you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The best part about fucking with “Christians” is that there’s never a wrong target to fuck up.
The actually good ones, the infinitesimally small number that they are, will gladly understand that they are gloriously suffering for the “right” reasons.
The bad ones are worthy of derision for their culpability in everything wrong with the world today. Fuck yeah!
Re:
At this point, some corollary of Poe’s Law hasme wondering whether people like you are just horrible human beings, or if you are additionally right-wing plants. Or law enfarcement.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I used to think like you, once. That if we didn’t show the intolerant the same tolerance we wanted, we were just as bad as they were. Four years of Trump presidency after, and the repeal of Roe versus Wade, taught me different.
Fuck giving these scumbags a platform. They’ve had it far too good for far too long. Making fun of them online is a mere fraction of the mockery and derision they richly deserve.
And if you genuinely think that I’m a plant of some sort, it matters very little to me. I’m not going to start being civil towards them. It’s called being born this way. If you think that right-wing freaks are responsible, then even better! The blame goes to them, not the communities I’m a part of.
Re: Re: Re:
You can’t hide the truth, Hyman. We’ll be back like students on UCLA and Columbia. We’ll be back!
Re: Re: Re:2
Nazis
Intolerance of intolerance is NOT intolerance
Intolerance of intolerance is NOT intolerance, Hating folks for who they are is hateful, hating folks who hate folks for who they are is NOT hateful. Stochastic terrorism is real and should not be protected. [Self reference is a bitch, who shaves the barber, set of all sets that aren’t members of themselves, and etc. it can break basic logic, ask Bertrand Russell, it shouldn’t break how we deal with it]
Re:
Two negatives make a positive.
Re:
I love you too.
Meet you on the UCLA campgrounds?