European Court Upholds Conviction For Calling Muhammad A Pedophile

As reported by the Daily Mail, in E.S. v. Austria, (ECHR, Oct. 25, 2018) the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously in a Chamber Judgment that Austria did not violate free speech protections of the European Convention on Human Rights, Sec. 10, when it convicted a speaker of disparaging religious precepts.  The speaker, a woman identified as E.S., made a statement disparaging Muhammad at a seminar titled “Basic information on Islam” presented at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute. Her presentation labelled Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as pedophilia  As summarized by the Court's Information Note on the decision, the Court held:

The applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation given that they had not been made in an objective manner aimed at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only have been understood as aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship.... Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society....

The applicant had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, while failing to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue, and had thus made a value judgement without sufficient factual basis.... As to the applicant’s argument that a few individual statements had to be tolerated during a lively discussion, it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and deduce that this would render the statements, exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression, passable. Moreover, the applicant had been wrong to assume that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts.

Chamber judgments may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. [Updated to provide link to full text of decision. Thanks to Seth Tillman for the link.]

No Free Exercise Violation In Ban of Patron From City Swim Club

In White v. Simpson, (WD AR, Oct. 10, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claims that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was banned from the premises of a city aquatic club.  The ban was based on his distracting lifeguards and his sexually harassing them verbally.  Plaintiff claimed that his rights were infringed because he was carrying on religious discussions with one of the lifeguards and gave the lifeguard a gift with a "Jesus loves you" message in it. The court found that none of the defendants knew of the religious nature of the discussions, so there was no evidence that he was banned because of his religion or the content or viewpoint of is speech.

Campus Pro-Life Speech Case Settled

An ADF press release reports that a settlement has been reached in Ratio Christi of Kennesaw State University v. Olens.  In the suit, a student group charged that the Georgia college limited its pro-life display to a small area set aside as a "speech zone." (See prior posting).  Under the settlement agreement, the school will eliminate its speech zone and students will be free to speak in all outdoor areas of the campus.  The school will also pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $20,100.

Atlanta Agrees To $1.2M Settlement With Fired Fire Chief

A $1.2 million settlement has been reached in Cochran v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, the suit brought by a former Atlanta fire chief who was dismissed from his position over a book which he wrote.  The book, designed as a religious guide for men, called those who engage in extramarital or in homosexual sex "wicked" and "ungodly." A court found the city's pre-clearance rules for outside employment unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the settlement amount was approved by an 11-3 vote at Atlanta City Council meeting Monday.

UK Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Baker Who Refused To Supply Cake Supporting Gay Marriage

In a widely followed case, the United Kingdom Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Christian bakers in a case that became particularly high profile after the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.  In Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Ltd, (UKSC, Oct. 10, 2018), the court framed the question-- which arose under anti-discrimination provisions in the law of Northern Ireland-- as follows:

The substantive question in this case is whether it is unlawful discrimination, either on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, for a bakery to refuse to supply a cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” because of the sincere religious belief of its owners that gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and therefore unacceptable to God.

Rejecting the claim that the bakery engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the court said in part:

The reason for treating Mr Lee less favourably than other would-be customers was not his sexual orientation but the message he wanted to be iced on the cake. Anyone who wanted that message would have been treated in the same way.... By definition, direct discrimination is treating people differently....

In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons....

Experience has shown that the providers of employment, education, accommodation, goods, facilities and services do not always treat people with equal dignity and respect, especially if they have certain personal characteristics which are now protected by the law. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.

The court also rejected the contention that the bakery had discriminated against Mr. Lee on the basis of his political opinion:

The objection was not to Mr Lee because he, or anyone with whom he associated, held a political opinion supporting gay marriage. The objection was to being required to promote the message on the cake. The less favourable treatment was afforded to the message not to the man.... The situation is not comparable to people being refused jobs, accommodation or business simply because of their religious faith. It is more akin to a Christian printing business being required to print leaflets promoting an atheist message.

The court went on to hold that were the bakery required to furnish the cake, it would violate the owners' freedom of conscience and free expression rights protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court gave a broad interpretation to the rights:

[T]here is no requirement that the person who is compelled to speak can only complain if he is thought by others to support the message. Mrs McArthur may have been worried that others would see the Ashers logo on the cake box and think that they supported the campaign. But that is by the way: what matters is that by being required to produce the cake they were being required to express a message with which they deeply disagreed.

In a Postscript, the court discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion.  The court also issued a Press Summary of the opinion. Irish Times reports on the decision.
[Thanks to Marty Lederman and Seth Tillman via Religionlaw for the lead.] [This post has been updated to eliminate the statement that this case was "analogous" to Masterpiece Cakeshop.]

Arizona's Anti-BDS Law Enjoined

In Jordahl v. Brnovich, (D AZ, Sept. 27. 2018), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Arizona's statute requiring those contracting with the state to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. Plaintiff Mikkel Jordahl's law firm contracts with the county jail district to provide legal advice to inmates.  Jordahl boycotts consumer goods and services from businesses that support "Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories." The court concluded that "Plaintiffs would at least be able to meet their burden of showing that the Certification Requirement is an unconstitutional condition on government contractors." The court said in part:

The Act thus encompasses and contemplates elements of expressive political conduct protected under the Constitution. As such, the Court finds it highly likely that Plaintiffs will be able to establish that “boycott,” as defined in the Arizona legislature, burdens expressive political activity protected under the First Amendment. The question then becomes whether the State has an adequate interest in restricting companies’ rights to engage in boycotts of Israel by conditioning their government contracts on a promise to refrain from such activity....

Here, the State has proffered two interests to justify the Certification Requirement: (1) an interest in regulating the State’s “commercial activity to align commerce in the State with the State’s policy objectives and values” and (2) an interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of national origin....

The legislative history of the Act calls these stated interests into doubt. The Act’s history instead suggests that the goal of the Act is to penalize the efforts of those engaged in political boycotts of Israel and those doing business in Israeli-occupied territories because such boycotts are not aligned with the State’s values.... If so, such an interest is constitutionally impermissible.

Payson Roundup reports on the decision.

6th Circuit: Moving Street Preachers Away From Pride Festival Violated Their Free Speech Rights

In McGlone v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, (6th Cir., Sept. 19, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the free speech rights of two sidewalk preachers were infringed when they were required to move their amplified anti-homosexuality preaching across the street from the park where a Pride festival was being held. The majority held:

Nashville excluded McGlone and Peters from a traditional public forum for expressing a message opposed to homosexuality and Nashville provides no compelling reason for doing so. Indeed, Nashville does not even argue that its restriction of McGlone and Peters’ speech could survive strict scrutiny review. We therefore end our inquiry here.

Judge Moore dissented, saying in part:

I believe that it was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction for ... Nashville ... to require ... John McGlone and Jeremy Peters ... to cross a downtown street if they wished to continue shouting disruptive messages through bullhorns during a permit-authorized event in a public park....

Ball State Settles Suit By Pro-Life Student Group

The Muncie Star Press reported last week on the recent settlement of a lawsuit (see prior posting) against Ball State University by "Students for Life at BSU." The suit alleged viewpoint discrimination in distribution of student activity fees. The pro-life student group's request for $300 from student activity fees was denied, apparently under the Guideline excluding from funding "[a]ny Organization which engages in activities, advocacy, or speech in order to advance a particular political interest, religion, religious faith, or ideology." Under the Settlement Agreement (full text), the University will adopt new rules that require that student activity fees be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner The school will also pay $300 in damages to the student group and pay the group's $12,000 in attorneys' fees to Alliance Defending Freedom.

Street Preacher's Disturbing-the-Peace Citation Was Valid

In Roy v. City of Monroe, (WD LA, Aug. 29, 2018), a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a street preacher's suit challenging the constitutionality of the city of Monroe's disturbing-the-peace ordinance and the citation he received for violating it. The court described the conduct that led to the citation and summons:

The Corner Bar is known as a gathering spot for homosexuals. Roy believes that homosexuality is a sin. He preaches against homosexuality, as well as drinking alcohol, the use of drugs, fornication, and other topics.... On this night, they gathered at a telephone pole across the street from the Corner Bar. Roy was wearing an orange jump suit to demonstrate that he is a “prisoner of Christ” and to pose the questions to others, “Whose prisoner are you?”. At various times, he was also carrying a sixfoot cross made of cedar 4 x 4s. He normally approaches people and says something short to “startle” them or “stop” them. He cannot “afford to” be concerned about other people’s feelings because it might alter his message. Roy tells people that they are “going to Hell,” uses the terms “homosexual” and “whore,” and will tell people that “their father is the devil.” He raises his voice, shouts, and uses “strong Biblical language” to convey his message.

Burning In Effigy Does Not Violate Ban In India On Mock Funerals

In Jadaun v. State of Upper Pradesh, (Allahabad High Court, Aug. 9, 2018), a trial court in India held that the burning in effigy of a living person by protesters does not violate the statutory ban on participation in a mock funeral ceremony.  LiveLaw reports on the decision.

DC Circuit Remands Suit On Anti-Sharia Bus Ads

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (DC Cir., Aug. 17, 2018), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for further development of an argument based on a intervening Supreme Court decision a challenge to WMATA's guidelines on advertising that may be displayed on buses and in rail stations.  At issue is the constitutionality of a ban on "advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." AFDI wanted to rent space to display ads that

make the point that the First Amendment will not yield to Sharia adherent Islamists who want to enforce so-called blasphemy laws here in the United States, whether through threats of violence or through the actions of complicit government officials. 

In a 2-1 decision, the majority held that WMATA did not engage in viewpoint discrimination in rejecting the ad. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2018 decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky , according to the majority, raised an additional issue that the parties should have the opportunity to brief:

whether the discretion vested in a government official to permit or prohibit speech is “guided by objective, workable standards.” Mansky, 138 S. Ct. at 1891.... We must determine whether Guideline 9 is so broad as to provide WMATA with no meaningful constraint upon its exercise of the power to squelch.....

The parties’ briefs predate the decision in Mansky. Yet Mansky invites arguments about whether Guideline 9 is capable of reasoned application.

Judge Henderson dissented, arguing that the suit should be dismissed on mootness grounds. WTOP reports on the decision.

Suit Claims Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative Violates Mormons' Religious Freedom

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that yesterday a suit was filed in Utah state court seeking, on free exercise and free speech grounds, to remove Utah's medical marijuana initiative from the November ballot.  The suit, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, challenges the provision (Sec. 26-60b-110) in the initiative (full text) that bars refusals to rent to a medical marijuana card holder. The complaint reads in part:

In the United States of America, members of all religions, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs. This includes the right not to consort with, be around, or do business with people engaging in activities which their religion finds repugnant....

The State of Utah is attempting to compel the speech of Utah landowners by suppressing their ability to speak out against cannabis use and consumption by only renting to tenants who do not possess or consume cannabis," the complaint reads, “and who support their viewpoints in opposition against cannabis possession and consumption.

In the suit, plaintiff contends that his "religious beliefs include a strict adherence to a code of health which precludes the consumption and possession of mind-altering drugs, substances and chemicals, which includes cannabis and its various derivatives." Apparently this is based on interpretation of the Mormon Word of Wisdom health code.

Abortion Protesters Sue City For Violating Their Rights

A suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court by abortion protesters who claim that Toledo, Ohio police have violated their free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights by enforcing or threatening to enforce various provision of Ohio law against them.  The complaint (full text) in Zastrow v. City of Toledo, (ND OH, filed 8/1/2018), contends in part:

The City’s pattern of conduct, which includes arresting, citing, prosecuting and threatening to arrest, cite, and prosecute, pro-life demonstrators, including Plaintiffs, for engaging in expressive religious activity on the public fora adjacent to the Capital Care abortion center, has had, and continues to have, a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ expressive religious activity, thereby causing irreparable harm.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Qualified Immunity For Issuing Citation To Street Preaher

In Roy v. City of Monroe, (WD LA, Aug. 1 2018), a Louisiana federal district court granted defendant's motion for reconsideration and dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the damage portion of a claim by a street preacher against a police officer.  At issue was a claim that issuance of a citation and summons to the preacher for disturbing the peace violated his First Amendment rights. The court said in part:

Sergeant Booth issued a citation to Roy for disturbing the peace based upon Falcon’s complaint to him, in which she said Roy followed her across the street, called her names, and scared her. Falcon’s complaints were corroborated by Falcon appearing scared and by her direct identification of Roy. Sergeant Booth did not issue a citation to Roy for preaching in a public forum. Viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, Booth had probable cause, and is entitled to qualified immunity.

Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees were set for trial.

DC Circuit Upholds Bus Ad Restrictions On Religious Subject Matter

In Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, (DC Cir., July 31, 2018), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 44-pages of opinions, rejected challenges to the WMATA's guidelines which preclude the sale of advertising space on public buses for issue-oriented advertising, including political, religious and advocacy ads.  The ban includes ads "that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief."  The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington wished to purchase space on the exterior of buses for its Christmas season "Find the Perfect Gift" ad.  Finding that advertising space on buses is a non-public forum, the court said in part:

the government has wide latitude to restrict subject matters — including those of great First Amendment salience ... — in a nonpublic forum as long as it maintains viewpoint neutrality and acts reasonably....

The Archdiocese’s position would eliminate the government’s prerogative to exclude religion as a subject matter in any non-public forum. It contends Supreme Court precedent prohibits governments from banning religion as a subject matter.... Not only is this position contrary to the Supreme Court’s recognition that governments retain the prerogative to exclude religion as a subject matter, see Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 831, it would also undermine the forum doctrine because the Archdiocese offers no principled reason for excepting religion from the general proposition that governments may exclude subjects in their non-public forums....

The Archdiocese contends also that ... Guideline 12 is unconstitutional because, like the restrictions challenged in Rosenberger, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993), and Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), it suppresses the Archdiocese’s religious viewpoint on subjects that are otherwise includable in the forum. But far from being an abrogation of the distinction between permissible subject matter rules and impermissible viewpoint discrimination, each of these cases represents an application of the Supreme Court’s viewpoint discrimination analysis, of which Guideline 12 does not run afoul. In each, the Court held that the government had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because the challenged regulation operated to exclude religious viewpoints on otherwise includable topics. An examination of each case demonstrates the contrast between the breadth of subjects encompassed by the forums at issue and WMATA’s in which, unlike the restrictions struck down by the Court, Guideline 12 does not function to exclude religious viewpoints but rather proscribes advertisements on the entire subject matter of religion.

Judge Wilkins, while joining the court's opinion, filed a concurring opinion as well.  Washington Times reports on the decision.

Street Preacher Denied Preliminary Injunction Against Trespass Policy of Sports Arena

In Lacroix v. Lee County, Florida, (MD FL, July 23, 2018), a Florida federal district court denied a preliminary injunction sought by a street preacher who was not permitted to preach on the premises of a county-owned sports arena which was hosting a concert. Plaintiff claimed that the Lee County Special Events Permitting Ordinance, and the trespass policy enforced in connection with special events on county property, violate his free speech and free exercise rights. The court concluded that plaintiff's pleadings failed to show that he meets various prerequisites for standing, and that he does not face imminent irreparable harm.

New York AG Denied Injunction Against Anti-Abortion Protesters

In People of the State of New York v. Griepp, (ED NY, July 20, 2018), a New York federal district court, in a 103-page opinion, refused to grant the New York Attorney General a preliminary injunction against anti-abortion protesters who have been clashing with volunteer clinic escorts outside a Queens medical center.  The suit alleged that the protesters violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACES), the New York Clinic Access Act (NYSCAA) and a similar New York City provision. The court describes the coverage of the statutes:

Using essentially identical language, both FACE and NYSCAA provide penalties for those who (1) by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction, (2) intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person, or attempt to do the same, (3) “because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1); see N.Y. Penal Law § 240.70(1)(a)–(b). NYCCAA prohibits a host of similar activities that prevent access to reproductive health care facilities. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-803(a).

After a lengthy review of the evidence, the court concluded that protesters had not violated any of these provisions. For example, it said:

[T]he OAG has introduced evidence that the protestors sometimes continued attempting to engage with a person who asked to be left alone and that the protestors sometimes attempted to engage people who were not receptive to a different protestor’s overtures. Although such conduct can be circumstantial evidence of an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm, it does not establish that intent here. The interactions on the sidewalk outside Choices were generally quite short, and there is no credible evidence that any protestor disregarded repeated requests to be left alone over an extended period or changed his or her tone or message in response to requests to be left alone in a way that suggested an intent to harass, annoy, or alarm. The OAG has failed to show that any defendant had the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm a patient, companion, or escort; thus, it has failed to show that any defendant has violated NYCCAA, as interpreted by the OAG.

A word of caution—this decision should not embolden the defendants to engage in more aggressive conduct. In a few instances noted, several of the defendants’ actions came close to crossing the line from activity protected by the First Amendment to conduct prohibited by NYCCAA. Engaging in concerted activity that suggests an intent to annoy rather than to persuade not only violates the law, but also would seem to be contrary to defendants’ stated objectives. Voluntarily discontinuing the practice of speaking to patients who have affirmatively asked to be left alone not only would evidence the defendants’ good will, but also would lessen the likelihood of future litigation directed toward their protest activities.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Bus Ad space Is Limited Forum, Allowing Rejection of Ads On Religious Matters

In Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society v. County of Lackawanna Transit System, (MD PA, July 9, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to the policy that excluded controversial public issue advertising on Lackawanna buses. Among other things, the policy, in its latest version, excludes ads

that promote the existence or non-existence of a supreme deity, deities, being or  beings; that address, promote, criticize or attack a religion or religions, religious  beliefs or lack of religious beliefs; that directly quote or cite scriptures, religious text or texts involving religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs; or are otherwise religious in nature.

The suit was brought by the Freethought Society after its proposed ad was rejected.  In ruling for the Transit Authority, the court held that: 

COLTS’ advertising space is a limited forum and  that COLTS did not violate Freethought’s First Amendment free speech rights when  it refused to display Freethought’s advertisements containing the word “atheists” on COLTS’ buses.

Scranton Times Tribune reports on the decision.

Suit Over Charlottesville Neo-Nazi Rally May Proceed

In Sines v. Kessler, (WD VA, July 9, 2018), a Virginia federal district court, in a 62-page opinion, held that a group of Charlottesville residents can move ahead with most of their claims for injuries growing out of the racist and anti-Semitic August 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville. The court summarized its opinion:

In 1871, Congress passed a law “directed at the organized terrorism in the Reconstruction South[.]” ... 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Over a hundred and forty years later ... the Defendants ..., including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.... Plaintiffs, allege that this violence was no accident. Instead, they allege the Defendants violated the 1871 Act and related state laws by conspiring to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters. The Defendants retort that they were simply engaged in lawful, if unpopular, political protest and so their conduct is protected by the First Amendment. While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day, the Court holds the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the Defendants formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims largely survive, although one Defendant is dismissed and other claims are pared down.

WTVR reports on the decision.

Boston Sued Over Refusal To Allow Christian Flag On Public Flag Pole

A suit was filed last week in Massachusetts federal district court against the city of Boston by Camp Constitution, a non-profit organization whose purposes include enhancing understanding of the United States' Judeo-Christian moral heritage.  The complaint (full text) in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (D MA, filed 7/6/2018) alleges that it was refused use of a City Hall flagpole that is generally available to organizations to use in connection with cultural, historic or other events.  Camp Constitution sought to fly a Christian flag in connection with its planned event designed to recognize the contributions Boston’s Christian community to the city’s cultural diversity, intellectual capital and economic growth.  The city refused permission under an informal policy that allowed only "non-secular" flags to fly from the pole. The suit contends that this violate's plaintiffs' free speech and equal protection rights as well as the Establishment Clause under both the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.