A Stitch in Haste

Just some quick pass-alongs.

ITEM: A gaggle of Philadelphia-based bigots have lost their appeal, of their lost lawsuit, in which they insisted that they, somehow, have a right to throw temper tantrums in public —

Anti-homosexual activists arrested when they disobeyed police orders to move during Philadelphia’s 2004 OutFest celebration had a right to demonstrate but not disrupt the coming-out festival, a federal appeals court ruled today.
…
All charges were dropped, and the activists filed suit, contending that police and the city violated their First Amendment rights and that police silenced them because of the content of their message.

But the Third Circuit said Philadelphia police “had ample justification” in directing the protesters to move when they “interfered” with event activities.

“The police action was not based on the content of [the activists'] message but on their conduct,” wrote Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, who said a video of the event showed the Repent America group tried to “drown out” platform speakers and congregated in the middle of the walkway.

MY TAKE: Both the trial and the appellate courts rightly held that the gays could not exclude the bigots from the Pride festival outright (the “St. Patrick’s Day Massacre” of Hurley v. GLIB notwithstanding). That was overreaching, even if the gays knew, just knew, that the bigots would insist on trying to disrupt the event (which of course they did). But that was not the question here. The only issue was whether the bigots somehow had a First Amendment right to disrupt the festivities with bullhorns and other noisy nuisances. Yes, the lawsuit really was that frivolous. Whatever it takes, “Christians.” Whatever it takes. Startzell v. Philadelphia, No. 07-1461 (3rd Cir., July 15, 2008) (PDF – 35 pages)

ITEM: Speaking of Christians, one in particular —

Australia’s federal court was asked to rule on special regulations that banned behavior that caused annoyance or inconvenience to participants of World Youth Day. Those found guilty could have been fined up to $5,300.

The new laws were brought in recently by the New South Wales state leader Morris Iemma, in an attempt to limit protests against the pope’s visit during the festival. The state government passed them without discussion or debate.
…
Three judges ruled that the regulations limited freedom of speech and were invalid under Australia’s constitution. The state government will not appeal the decision.

MY TAKE: The protest group that sued, the NoToPope Coalition, takes issue with the Vatican’s views regarding, among other things, homosexuality. This litigation, meanwhile, is essentially the same analysis as the Philadelphia incident, just in reverse. Neither individuals nor the government have the prerogative of assuming, a priori, that someone will be a heckler and therefore quash their natural right of free expression and protest in advance of the event they are expected to heckle. You must wait for the heckling to take place before you can quash it. And there is certainly no such thing as a “right not to be annoyed.” What where these Aussie hack politicians thinking?

Meanwhile, Hodak Value weighs in:

I often wonder about the necessity of an “anti-legislature,” a body devoted to eliminating unnecessary laws, to neutralize the worst effects of legislatures. It turns out that the most effective anti-legislature, if it ever awoke from its constitutional coma, would be a judiciary committed to upholding the principle of enumerated powers.

Amen.

Filed under: Activist Legislators & Nanny Statists, First Amendment - Speech, Foreign Affairs, Gay Rights and Issues, Law, Society, Religion, Culture Wars