Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment

from the fearing-for-the-people-who-aren't-the-people-responding-to-the-other-people dept

One of the more common violations of the First Amendment is viewpoint discrimination. When entities run into speech they don’t like, they often steamroll Constitutional rights in their hurry to shut this speech down.

The government is allowed some time and place restrictions on speech, but it is very limited in its options. To expand these options, government entities will often say things about “public safety” to justify their incursion on people’s rights. These justifications rarely justify the overreach.

Maybe these things happen because governments (incorrectly, in some cases) assume those whose rights have been abridged won’t sue. Maybe they happen because governments assume nebulous “public safety” concerns won’t be examined thoroughly if they are sued. Or maybe they just assume that, because they’re using the public’s money to both violate rights and defend against accusations of rights violations, none of this really matters because it isn’t any particular government employee’s money at stake.

That brings us to this case [PDF], where a Maryland federal court has ruled the government had no justifiable reason to shut down a “prayer rally.” What it did have were some unjustifiable reasons, which were mainly related to the speakers and the kind of speech the government expected to be uttered… I mean, if it hadn’t unconstitutionally shuttered the event. (via Courthouse News Service)

Here’s some brief background by the court, which doesn’t highlight the most likely trigger: alt-right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been banned from [name a social media platform].

St. Michael’s, a non-profit organization, “is a vocal critic of the mainstream Catholic Church,” including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”). Plaintiff seeks to hold the prayer rally and conference to criticize the Church, particularly with respect to child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, and it wants to do so on a date that coincides with the USCCB’s Fall General Assembly. The USCCB plans to meet from November 15 – 18, 2021 at the Waterfront Marriott Hotel (“Hotel”), a private facility located near Pier VI.

On or about August 5, 2021, weeks after plaintiff had paid a $3,000 deposit to SMG for use of the Pavilion, SMG, on instruction of the City, notified St. Michael’s that plaintiff could not rent the Pavilion. The City cited safety concerns linked to some of the people who were identified as speakers at the event.

Given the average government’s “for the children” protestations whenever it plans to violate rights, you’d think a rally criticizing a religious entity infamous for sexual abuse of children would be right up its rhetorical alley. You’d assume wrong — not if its “allies” include people the elected officials of Baltimore find noxious. (That list includes Yiannopoulos, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, and Newsmax commentator Michelle Malkin.)

St. Michaels sued, alleging First Amendment violations. The court (unsurprisingly) agrees. First, it notes a similar rally by the same group in 2018 which resulted in no acts of violence or any other threats to public safety. Nevertheless, city officials insisted this time would be different.

Michael Huber, Mayor Scott’s Chief of Staff, avers that the discussions between SMG and St. Michael’s “came to the attention” of the City in July 2021. In particular, the City learned that St. Michael’s planned a rally featuring speakers “known for encouraging violent actions that have resulted in injuries, death, and property damage.” In the City’s view, some of the speakers would “provoke a strong reaction and raise the potential for clashes and disturbances,” given the “very real potential [that the speakers] would use [the rally] to incite violence and public disruption.”

While it’s true some of the threat matrix may have changed following an unprecedented attack on the Capitol building in Washington, DC by so-called conservatives apparently hoping to negate a peaceful presidential election, no previous experience with this group should have led city officials to this conclusion. And, while the forum being rented was privately-owned, the city has some say in the issuance (and, in this case, rescinding) of contracts. When it interceded — for internally inconsistent reasons — it violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Without question, the City reacted to a perceived safety concern arising from past use of inflammatory remarks by some of the rally speakers. In thwarting the rally, the City essentially invoked or relied on the heckler’s veto. And, in doing so, it exercised complete, unfettered discretion; it acted on an ad hoc basis, without any standards. Further, it has presented somewhat shifting justifications for its actions, with little evidence to show that the decision was premised on these justifications.

As to the matter of discretion, the City apparently has unbridled discretion to determine whether, when, and how to intervene in bookings of the Pavilion. The record before the Court indicates that the process used here was entirely ad hoc. After plaintiff’s plans came to the attention of the City, the City decided to intervene with SMG, requiring SMG to terminate negotiations with St. Michael’s. No policies, guidelines, or procedures have been brought to the attention of the Court providing any factors or systematized approach governing the City’s actions here. As far as the Court is aware, none exist.

As the court notes, the main concern the city had appeared to be about those who would show up and protest the St. Michael’s protest, rather than the supposed “incendiary” participants working with St. Michael’s. That only adds to the list of ways the city violated the First Amendment.

The City’s invocation of a heckler’s veto also raises serious concerns that its decision was motivated by viewpoint discrimination. Huber cited the prospect of counter protestors when explaining the City’s decision. And, at the hearing, counsel for the City placed considerable weight on the City’s concerns as to counter protestors and the disruption and potential violence that might ensue. In other words, the City seems to have based its decision on the anticipated reaction of counter protestors, which is precisely the “persistent and insidious threat[s] to first amendment rights” discussed in Berger, 779 F.2d at 1001…

This is not an acceptable justification for regulating speech.

And more along those same lines:

As the Ninth Circuit put it in Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign, although this concern might receive less weight outside of a traditional or designated public forum context, it is still relevant when “used as a mere pretext for suppression expression” based on viewpoint. This includes, for example, “where the asserted fears of a hostile audience reaction are speculative and lack substance.”

Such is the case here. The City cannot conjure up hypothetical hecklers and then grant them veto power.

St. Michael’s gets its injunction against the City of Baltimore. The show will go on. The City violated the group’s rights when it decided the people who didn’t secure the venue were so potentially dangerous the speakers who rented the venue shouldn’t be allowed to speak. A heckler’s viewpoint is indistinguishable from viewpoint discrimination in situations like these. The city decided in favor of one viewpoint (the counterprotesters [a.k.a., the hecklers] and decided the other viewpoint (St. Michael’s) had no right to be heard.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: st. michael's

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
16 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

If ‘counter-protesters might get violent’ are grounds to shut down an event then it becomes laughably easy to exercise the heckler’s veto, just have someone smash some stuff up at an event hosted by a group you don’t like and like that all future events planned by them are out.

Arguing that the people speaking have called for violence in past events and and gotten it I could see as reasonable grounds to deny them a platform but when you extend that to the people that don’t like them that just makes it trivial to shut someone down so it’s good the court didn’t buy that argument as that strikes me as a precedent that could and would cause some serious problems.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Arguing that the people speaking have called for violence in past events and and gotten it I could see as reasonable grounds to deny them a platform

That’s prior restraint. I can’t be denied the right to speak in public in perpetuity just because I’ve advocated for violence in the past. My opinion anyway, maybe the right to free speech is weaker than I would like to think.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

While Milo & the others are a waste of human flesh, IMHO, they still get to talk to people who think they have something to say.

If we want to talk about anticipating violence & bad things happening…

Catholics in Ireland were kind of shooty/bomby.

Milo, as far as I know, has never blown up clinics or shot Doctors/Nurses to stop something he disagreed with.

While Bannon MIGHT have dissolved someone in a hotel hottub, the jury is still out, the Catholics kept moving priests they KNEW were touchy feely sexy making on children to new parishes with no warnings.

How many unmarked graves are we up to on the Indian Schools grounds?

For has horrible as they claim the protestors might have been, they seem to be completely unaware of the documented actual bad things the other side has engaged in for a very long time.

I mean the only commonality I could come up with is I totes think that Milo would have misused funds to have a party with young men & party favors just like the Vatican’s banker had been doing.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

For has horrible as they claim the protestors might have been, they seem to be completely unaware of the documented actual bad things the other side has engaged in for a very long time.

I think you’re mischaracterizing / oversimplifying the city’s position. They’re not saying St. Michael’s can’t have their rally because they’re bad people who have done bad things, therefore the number and degree of bad things other people have done is irrelevant. The city’s claim is that the speakers St. Michael’s is inviting have a history of inciting violence. Or possibly because they anticipate violent counter protestors. Or maybe both. I’m not saying they’re right, I’m just saying they’re not saying what you seem to be saying they were saying.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"The city’s claim is that the speakers St. Michael’s is inviting have a history of inciting violence."

The Vatican has a history of inciting violence as well was my point.

The 1st Amendment says they can’t block the counter protest, but based on the ‘reason’ they offered the group they were protecting from being upset is just as shitty as the other group.
Trying to block the meeting for that ‘reason’ fails basic thought, as well as being a violation of the other groups right to shitty speaker choices.

If you are going to try to violate someones rights, at least apply your shitty reasoning equally, to avoid looking like the state wanted to protect a church groups feels & run afoul of an even bigger can of worms.

Anonymous Coward says:

The City violated the group’s rights when it decided the people who didn’t secure the venue were so potentially dangerous the speakers who rented the venue shouldn’t be allowed to speak.

If counter-protestors are such an issue, the answer is not to shutdown the protestors, but to add a police presence to keep the counter-protestors inline.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...