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.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, baltimore, catholic church, free speech, michelle malkin, milo yiannopoulos, prior restraint, rally, steve bannon
Companies: st. michael's


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Oct 2021 @ 5:05pm

    “Oh, so when the government does it, it’s ‘censorship’, but when Twitter does it, it’s ‘consequences’?” — Donald Trump, probably

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 21 Oct 2021 @ 7:20pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2021 @ 7:37am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2021 @ 12:15am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2021 @ 7:41am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2021 @ 7:53am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2021 @ 8:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

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

          Oh, well you mostly gave examples of committing violence, rather than calling for it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2021 @ 2:12pm

      Re:

      Catholics in Ireland were kind of shooty/bomby.

      The Catholic establishment in Baltimore has itsown interesting history.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2021 @ 6:41am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2021 @ 4:23am

    The court verdict here is a wonder to behold, a last gasp of "American" ideals sounded out among a world gone mad. I wonder what advanced tricks Baltimore will borrow from Texas (and California) to make sure its future actions never get to be heard by a court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisment

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

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

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.