Burn in hell versus The heckler’s veto (op-ed)

Recently a federal appeals court ruled Dearborn, Michigan police officers violated the free speech rights of a California based Christian group called Bible Believers when authorities made them leave the 2012 Arab International festival or be arrested.

The Bible Believer’s attorney stated the city of Dearborn (Which has a large population of Arab-Americans, predominately Muslim.) has a “long history” of suppressing the free speech rights of Christians. In 2009 a California pastor was prevented by the city of Dearborn from handing out Christian pamphlets. In 2010 four Christian missionaries were arrested for allegedly disturbing the peace at the annual Arab International Festival. These missionaries filed a lawsuit and were awarded $300,000.

Then in 2011 the Bible Believers appeared in Dearborn at the annual Arab International Festival. (They must have read this headline: Christian missionaries awarded $300,000.) The Bible Believers carried signs insulting Islam and their preaching prompted shouting matches and fist fights.

The Bible Believers returned to the 2012 Arab International Festival.

Before their arrival they sent a letter to the proper authorities requesting police protection in case of violence. This time the Bible Believers brought a pigs head, an unclean animal to Muslims, along with their signs insulting Islam and preached Muslims would “burn in hell”.

The Bible Believers were attacked. They sought police protection. But instead of protection the police issued an ultimatum.

Now the federal appeals court judge said, “From a constitutional standpoint, this should be an easy case to resolve … the answer to disagreeable speech is not violent retaliation by offended listeners or ratification of the heckler’s veto through threat of arrest by the police.” But from the police standpoint the situation was easily solved by removing the Bible Believers.

This was a classic clash between constitutional theorist and law enforcement practitioners. In these battles it’s possible for both sides to be right. The outcome of this case rested on determining the primary function of the police at the festival.

According to a Wayne State University law professor, “The basic principle is that the police have a responsibility to protect the speakers … under the first amendment, the police have a duty to restrict the crowd.”

But when the Bible Believers requested police protection the proper authorities replied: Law enforcement owes their “duty to the public as a whole and is not required to serve as a security force for the sole benefit of the Bible Believers.” The authorities also advised the Bible Believers that law enforcement can not prevent all unlawful conduct and that “under state and local ordinances individuals can be held criminally accountable for conduct which has the tendency to incite riotous behavior.”

The attorney for the Bible Believers believed if the actions of the police were upheld it would set a dangerous precedent. It would produce “a perverse incentive for hecklers” to get violent … to quash free speech and it also encourages law enforcement to shut down events they don’t like if they can get angry crowds to turn violent.

But the attorney for the police asked, “What was law enforcement to do, wait until a riot broke out before asking the group to disperse?” He continued, “I support the First Amendment … but I also must support the idea that there are times when it must take a back seat to public safety.”

The court was concerned with protecting free speech. The police were concerned with protecting the overall public. (Keep in mind the festival drew over 100,000 people and the police force consisted of 53 officers and six horses.) And the court decided in favor of the shouters of “burn in hell” over the veto of the hecklers.

In dissent one federal judge said, “There was no First Amendment violation … realistically viewed the Bible Believers were hecklers seeking to disrupt the cultural fair.” (The financial award for the Bible Believers will be determined later.) The judge also stated it was the “minority’s cultural expression” that lost from the decision.

In 2013, organizers ended the annual Arab International Festival because of higher insurance cost resulting from religious tension.

First published on in the New Pittsburgh Courier 11/4/15