ADF attorneys successfully halt censorship of pro-life advocates in Ohio
We read:
"Court says Ohio town's defense of unconstitutional permit scheme is 'baseless,' 'borders on bad faith'
A federal court has ruled that an Ohio town violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life advocates when police officers threatened them with arrest for engaging in pro-life speech. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Findlay on behalf of the pro-life advocates. "Christians shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Exercising your First Amendment rights is not a crime. The government has no right to harass and threaten citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights in public."
On July 31, 2007, Pastor Matthew Trewhella, Michael Marcavage, and volunteers from Missionaries to the Preborn were peacefully holding up signs promoting a pro-life message at an intersection in Findlay. The chief of police and two officers demanded that the group leave or face arrest, claiming that they needed a permit to present their message. After leaving the area, Marcavage contacted the mayor's office and soon discovered that no ordinance actually covered their activity and that the mayor's permit scheme should not have been applied to sign-holding.
In the opinion declaring the city's policy unconstitutional, the court wrote, "This permit scheme grants the City virtually unchecked discretion to deny permits for content based reasons. There are no objective standards by which the City is bound when considering whether to issue a permit.... Defendants' arguments to the contrary are not only baseless, but, even worse, border on bad faith."
"The government can't require Christians to request permission before they exercise their First Amendment rights on a public sidewalk," said Bowman. "We hope that Pastor Trewhella and other pro-life advocates will now be free to express their views without fear of government intimidation and censorship."
Source
2 comments:
I really hate it when a group that says it is striving for truth feels the need to lie.
From the header on the cited link, and the quoted section here:
Court says Ohio town's defense of unconstitutional permit scheme is 'baseless,' 'borders on bad faith'
The court said nothing of the sort. The protestors argued that the police were enforcing an "All Events Policy" (AEP) that the mayor had set up. The protestors were arguing that the AEP is unConstitutional. The police on site said that they were enforcing the ordinances of the city, and not the AEP which was created at the direction of the Mayor, and not created by legislature.
There is a tape of the incident which showed the court that the police were, in fact, using the AEP in an attempt to remove the demonstrators, and not any town ordinance.
It is in this context that the court writes, "Based on this direct evidence, the Court finds Chief Spraw was enforcing the AEP at Mayor Iriti’s direction during the July 31 demonstration where he ordered Plaintiffs to disperse. Defendants’arguments to the contrary are not only baseless, but, even worse, border on bad faith.
In other words, it is not, as the article states, the AEP itself that was 'baseless,' 'borders on bad faith' but rather the argument that the police were not enforcing the AEP. It was not the "defense" of the AEP that the court said was "baseless," but strictly the fact that the police stated to the court that they were using some other ordinances to remove the protestors when it is clear they they were using the AEP.
That being said, it is a good win for those who support free speech.
Although I do agree with the freedom of speech rights, these same people would be yelling for the bans if the message was opposite, I would guess. But more importantly, instead of just crying that they were treated unfairly by a ban that has no limits, why not truely fight for free speech and call for an ordinance that works for free speech equally? I guess that would not work for them if the other side used it. More political one sideness I guess, which ever side it is.
Post a Comment