House Hearing Examines Blasphemy Laws and Censorship Around the World

On Thursday, Congressional Hearings titled Blasphemy Laws and Censorship by States and Non-State Actors: Examining Global Threats to Freedom of Expression  were held by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.  Transcripts of most of the testimony as well as a video of the full hearing are available on the House Committee's website.

Anti-Islamic Group Sues Claiming Federal Law Shields Social Media Censorship

Yesterday the American Freedom Defense Initiative, its President Pamela Geller, its Vice President and the organization Jihad Watch sued the federal government contending that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Facebook, Twitter and YouTube when they censor anti-Islamic postings by plaintiffs.  The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, filed 7/13/2016), alleges that censorship and discrimination by social media outlets violate California anti-discrimination laws, but the CDA section on "Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material" allows Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage in discriminatory conduct. Among the allegations in the complaint against the social media sites are:

The discriminatory way in which Facebook applies its restrictions is evidenced by the fact that Facebook allows vicious posts and pages against Israel to stand, but when Plaintiff Geller and others expose the truth behind that Islamic hatred, the speech is prohibited.,,,

The Twitter policy, in effect, mirrors Islamic blasphemy standards as applied to censor speech critical of Islam, such as Plaintiffs’ speech.

The Center for Security Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Tracts Cannot Be Distributed On Arena Plaza

In Ball v. City of Lincoln, Nebraska, (D NE, June 23, 2016), a Nebraska federal district court dismissed an attempt to enjoin authorities from enforcing a policy that, among other things, bars leafleting on a Plaza Area outside the Pinnacle Bank Arena unless requested by a person renting out the Arena or the artists or productions they represent. (Full text of Use Policy.) The Arena was jointly constructed by the city of Lincoln and the University of Nebraska.  Plaintiff Larry Ball handed out religious tracts in the Plaza Area on several occasions, and was cited for trespass.  The court upheld the Arena's policy, finding that the Plaza Area is a non-public forum and that the restrictions on its use are reasonable because they are neutral and do not curtail free speech in nearby areas. Lincoln Journal Star reporting on the decision says that an appeal is planned.

7th Circuit: Bus Company Wrongly Refused Ad From Pro-Life Health Link

In Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp., (7th Cir., June 22, 2016), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Fort Wayne's Citilink wrongly refused to accept an ad that Women's Health Link wanted to place on city buses. Citilink's rules bar ads that "express or advocate opinions or positions upon political, religious, or moral issues."  The proposed ad did not express any such opinion or position, but the health care referral service it advertised is pro-life and so urges alternatives to abortion.  The court held that Citilink's rules are limited to ad content, and do not relate to the advertiser's underlying policies or material that may be on the advertiser's website. It concluded: "Citilink’s refusal to post the ad was groundless discrimination against constitutionally protected speech." Reuters reports on the decision.

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against College's Speech Permit Policy

In Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, (ED NC, June 4, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring North Carolina State University from enforcing its non-commercial speech permit policy that requires students to obtain prior written permission before distributing leaflets or soliciting passersby on campus. The suit was brought by a Christian student organization that proselytizes on campus. (See prior posting.) According to a press release by ADF, the court issued the preliminary injunction two days after a hearing in the case.  The court adopted plaintiff's allegations as its findings of fact. The preliminary injunction allows the University to still ban disruption of University activities, obstruction of buildings or sidewalks, or interference with educational activities or ceremonies.

3rd Circuit: Challenge To Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones May Move Ahead

In Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, (3d Cir., June 1, 2016), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a challenge to Pittsburgh's law creating a 15-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in which demonstrators and pickets are barred.  The majority held:

the First Amendment claims are sufficient to go forward at this stage of the litigation. The speech at issue is core political speech entitled to the maximum protection afforded by the First Amendment, and the City cannot burden it without first trying, or at least demonstrating that it has seriously considered, substantially less restrictive alternatives that would achieve the City’s legitimate, substantial, and content-neutral interests.

Judge Fuentes concurred in the judgment, but filed an opinion disagreeing with the majority's reasoning, arguing that requiring governments that place significant burdens on speech to prove that less restrictive means either failed or were seriously considered and rejected distorts the "narrow-tailoring" doctrine by eliminating the government's latitude to adopt regulations that are not the least intrusive means of serving the government's interest. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Gives Christian Proselytizer At Irish Fair Limited Victory

In Miller v. City of St. Paul, (8th Cir., May 23, 2016), an evangelical Christian who wanted to proselytize at the 2014 Irish Fair of Minnesota won a partial victory.  Police commander Patricia Englund told David Miller that he and his group who planned to carry a banner, hand out literature and preach were not welcome at the fairgrounds.  The Court held that Miller has standing to pursue a claim for damages against Commander Englund, but could not pursue official capacity claims or injunctive relief. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Two Religious Rights Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Wayne County v. Bible Believers, (Docket No. 15-1090, cert. denied 5/16/2016) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the right of Bible Believers, a Christian group, to engage in provocative and offensive proselytizing of Muslims at the annual Dearborn, Michigan Arab International Festival. (See prior posting.)

The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Rogers v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, (Docket No. 15-1105, cert. denied 5/16/2016) (Order List).  In the case, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts upheld an injunction against former parishioners of Frances X. Cabrini Church in Scituate who have held a 24-hour vigil in the church for over ten years in order to protest plans to close it. (See prior posting.)

Christian Group Sues Challenging University's Speech Permit Policy

A Christian student organization at North Carolina State University this week filed suit against University officials challenging the school's Speech Permit Policy that requires students to obtain prior written permission before distributing leaflets or soliciting passersby. According to the complaint (full text) in Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, (ED NC, filed 4/26/2016), Grace Christian Life's members and staff initiate conversations with students about religion. These conversations take place in and around the Student Union. University officials informed the group that the University's Speech Permit Policy applies to these conversations. Plaintiffs allege that the Policy has not been similarly enforced against other groups, and contends that the policy and its enforcement infringe Christian Life's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. the Raleigh News & Observer, reporting on the case, quotes University officials as claiming that the suit is "frivolous and without merit."

Suit Challenges School's Refusal To Publicize Scholarship Essay Contests By FFRF and Freethinkers Group

Last week the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Antelope Valley Freethinkers filed suit in California federal district court against a Los Angeles county school district after the district refused to publicize scholarship essay contests sponsored by the plaintiff groups.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District, (CD CA, filed 4/12/2016), contends that while the school publishes scholarship opportunities for students, including those offered by religiously-affiliated groups, it refused to publicize those of plaintiffs because the essay contest themes promote anti-religious expression and contain anti-religious undertones. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs' treatment amounts to viewpoint discrimination in violation of their free speech rights and violates the equal protection clause.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court OK's Distribution of Gospel Tracts At Motorcycle Rally

In McMahon v. City of Panama City Beach, Florida, (ND FL, April 12, 2016), a Florida federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to allow plaintiff to hand out Christian Gospel tracts at the Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally event held at Frank Brown Park in Panama City Beach. The court concluded that the city cannot rid the park of its "public forum" status by issuing a private party a permit to for exclusive use of the Festival Site in the park for an event, explaining:

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck..... Thunder Beach, a large gathering of people interested in motorcycles, though organized by a private corporation, is free and open to the public and has no barriers limiting or restricting ingress and egress.... Thunder Beach looks like a public forum, and so is a public forum, and McMahon retains the rights to free speech that he would possess in any public forum. 

Rastafarian Minister Loses Fight To Solicit Ballot Signatures At Revenue Office

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration, (WD AR, April 8, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed an action by Rev. Tom Brown, a Rastafarian minister, challenging a recent no-solicitation policy imposed by the state at certain Revenue Offices. For over a year Brown had stationed himself at a table on the lawn of the Fayetteville Revenue Office seeking signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act.  A number of patrons had filed police reports complaining of Brown's behavior. The court held that the solicitation ban is a reasonable restriction on speech in a non-public forum, saying in part:

As the ban is reasonably designed to promote the normal business activities of the State’s revenue offices and is viewpoint-neutral, the Court finds that the ban does not violate Rev. Brown’s constitutional rights. The ban does not prevent Rev. Brown from canvassing in other public forums, such as on city sidewalks, in plazas, or in parks. Similarly, Rev. Brown is still free to express to others his ideas about marijuana use, his religious faith, and the benefits of signing the ballot initiative he supports. 

FFRF Sues Connecticut City Over Refusal To Allow Winter Solstice Banner

A suit was filed two weeks ago by the Freedom From Religion Foundation challenging the refusal by Shelton, Connecticut authorities to allow FFRF to place a Winter Solstice display in a city park. The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of Shelton, Connecticut, (D CT, filed 3/22/2016) alleges that the city allows the American Legion to place a "heralding angels" religious display in Constitution Park every Christmas season. However the city refused to allow FFRF to put up a banner reading in part: "At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell...." The city thought the banner would be offensive to many. The complaint alleges free speech and equal protection violations.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the federal lawsuit. Yesterday WSHU News had a longer report on the lawsuit.

Bible Colleges Lose Challenge To State Regulation

In Illinois Bible Colleges Association v. Anderson, (ND IL, March 28, 2916), an Illinois federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by a group of Bible Colleges to three Illinois statutes that regulate institutions of higher education in the state.  The statutes generally require approval by the state Board of Higher Education to operate a degree-granting college or grant degrees or certificates of completion.  Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the statutes "subordinate the Church’s responsibility to God in deciding how to properly educate students in religious teaching" and "unconstitutionally restrict... their ability to accurately describe the nature of the Bible Colleges’ curricula by regulating the use of the terms 'Bachelor’s,' 'Master’s,' or 'Doctorate' degrees." The court rejected plaintiffs' establishment clause, free exercise, speech, association and equal protection challenges to the statutes and dismissed the complaint.

University's Limits on Religious Speech Create 1st Amendment Concerns

In Faulkner v. University of Cincinnati, (SD OH, March 23, 2016), an Ohio federal district court refused to dismiss a suit against the University of Cincinnati by one of its former lower level administrators, Mark Faulkner, who was sent a "corrective action" letter from the University's Office of Equal Opportunity and Access.  The letter was issued after he made references to Jesus and Biblical teachings in a lecture on "servant leadership" that he was asked to deliver at a leadership training course.  In the letter, Faulkner was told that he  "should refrain from using biblical quotations during presentations and work related interactions." The court said in part:

The University’s asserted interest in avoiding an employee’s discomfort at hearing biblical references (or in another context, hearing references to Buddhist teachings or the Quran, or the principles of atheism) simply and plainly do not outweigh Faulkner’s interests in free speech and in the free exercise of his religious principles.

The court also refused to dismiss a vagueness and overbreadth challenge to the University's Discriminatory Harassment Policy.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Oklahoma License Plate Controversy

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certorari in Cressman v. Thompson,  (Docket No. 15-709, cert. denied 3/21/2016) (Order List). In the case, the 10th Circuit rejected a compelled speech challenge to Oklahoma's vehicle license plates whose design show a Native American shooting an arrow towards the sky. Plaintiff claimed that the depiction is based on a Native American legend, and in violation of his Christian beliefs the depiction teaches there are multiple gods and that the arrow is an intermediary for prayer. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Court's denial of review. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

4th Circuit Upholds North Carolina's "Choose Life" License Plates

In ACLU of  North Carolina v. Tennyson, (4th Cir., March 10, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld North Carolina's decision to issue specialty "Choose Life" license plates even though the state refused to also issue a pro-choice specialty plate.  The case was on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court with instructions to to the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.  In reconsidering the case, the 4th Circuit's majority opinion said in part:

The specialty license plate program at issue here is substantively indistinguishable from that in Walker, and the Walker Court’s analysis is dispositive of the issues in this case. Accordingly, we now conclude that specialty license plates issued under North Carolina’s program amount to government speech and that North Carolina is therefore free to reject license plate designs that convey messages with which it disagrees.

Judge Wynn dissenting said in part:

I refuse to believe that with Walker, the Supreme Court meant to force us to choose that the mule in this case is either a horse or a donkey. Instead, Walker’s holding, when narrowly understood, does not lead to the conclusion that the North Carolina specialty plate speech at issue here constitutes pure government speech. On the contrary ..., it presents mixed speech—with private speech components that prohibit viewpoint discrimination.

U.S. Law Week reports on the decision.

Divorce Decree Restrictions Violate Mother's Free Exercise Rights

In Black v. Black, (WA App., March 8, 2016), a Washington state appeals court held that a trial court imposed improper conditions on the non-custodial parent in a divorce action.  Charles and Rachelle Black had three children whom they raised in a conservative Christian home and sent to religious-based schools.  After 17 years of marriage, Rachelle informed Charles that she is a lesbian, and two years later filed for divorce. The court's final parenting plan designated Charles as the primary residential parent, awarded him sole decision-making as to the children's religious upbringing and required Rachelle to refrain from having further conversations with the children regarding religion, homosexuality, or other alternative lifestyles. The appeals court reversed, saying:

While the best interests of the children is a trial court’s paramount concern ..., here there is no indication that Rachelle’s prior speech related to her sexual orientation or her religious views ... would cause harm to the children if such speech or conduct occurred in the future. Therefore, we hold that the restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on her freedom of speech and her free exercise of religion. 

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Bus Ad Case; Thomas Dissents

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, Washington, (Docket No. 15-584, cert. denied 3/7/2016). However Justice Thomas wrote an 8-page dissent to the denial of cert.  Justice Alito joined the dissent. (Order List at pg. 59).  They urged the Court to use the case to resolve the split among Circuits on whether advertising space on public buses should be categorized for First Amendment purposes as designated public forums or limited public forums.  Transit authorities have greater control over content in limited public forums.  AFDI, the appellant in this case, has been involved in a number of the other cases raising the same issue, and some of its ads in other cases have been attacked as anti-Muslim. (See prior posting.)

Meanwhile Reuters reported yesterday:

Humorous ads for a documentary film that aims to promote understanding and tolerance of Muslims went up in New York subways on Monday after the movie's production company won a legal battle with the city's transit authority....

The advertisements debuted after a federal court in Manhattan ruled in October that being Muslim was a religious, not a political, identity. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a policy prohibiting political speech in ads on public transportation.

2nd Circuit: MTA Rule Change Makes Challenge To Rejection of Anti-Muslim Ad Moot

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (2d Cir., March 3, 2016), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on mootness grounds of a suit against the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority challenging the MTA's refusal to accept an anti-Islamic ad that a pro-Israel group wished to run on the back of MTA buses.  The ad which portrayed a menacing‐looking man with his face mostly covered by a head scarf included the quote:  "Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah." Then beneath the quote, the ad stated:  "That’s His Jihad.  What’s yours?"  While the case was pending, the MTA changed its property from a designated public forum
to a limited public forum and barred any ad that is "political in nature." (See prior related posting.) New York Post reports on the decision.