A suburb of Atlanta is being challenged for a scheme it created that allows anyone to silence the speech of anyone else, if they don’t like the speech.
The dispute, which appears to be a direct challenge to the First Amendment, erupted because someone objected to the Christian message being offered on a city street, and with a city permit, by preacher Jason Cantrell.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that explained he has, for years, shared the Gospel on a public sidewalk outside an abortion business.
“He preaches to passersby and offers encouragement and prayer to women entering,” the organization said.
Like many speaking in public areas, where street noise and more can interfere, he used, with a city permit, a small system to amplify his voice.
This summer, Forest Park police issued him a citation anyway.
He was cited “after officers claimed he had been asked three times to turn the volume down. The problem wasn’t that Jason didn’t have a permit – he did. Instead, the city’s permit includes a troubling clause stating that it becomes ‘null and void’ if any complaints are received about the noise level,” the legal team noted.
The officers simply declared his permit void and ticketed him.
“In other words, the city has created a system in which anyone who dislikes a message can silence a speaker simply by complaining. That is not how the First Amendment works,” the ACLJ explained.
Under the city’s scheme, “officials have made lawful speech entirely contingent on whether listeners react favorably. Once anyone complains – regardless of whether the sound exceeds legal limits – the city automatically treats the permit as void. That means police can punish a speaker who was fully in compliance with the permit’s terms, simply because others objected to the message being spoken,” the ACLJ noted.
That’s called a “heckler’s veto” and long has been demanded by critics of Christian messaging, but also long has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
“The Constitution does not allow speech to be restricted based on listener reaction or public hostility,” the legal team said, and the Forest Park plan “does exactly” what the high court has forbidden.
Cantrell’s efforts to follow the requirements were confirmed because the city renewed his permit even after police ticketed him, although the faulty condition remained.
“Jason’s case underscores how such policies operate in practice. When the government ties speech rights to audience approval, unpopular or religious expression will always be the first target. A preacher’s message about faith or the sanctity of life may be deeply meaningful to some and uncomfortable to others – but under our Constitution, discomfort is not a basis for censorship,” the ACLJ said.
While Cantrell now faces a misdemeanor municipal court case, the ACLJ said the problem is far bigger.
“The First Amendment guarantees that government officials cannot suppress speech simply because someone complains about it. That protection applies equally to street preachers, political advocates, and protestors of every viewpoint. Forest Park’s policy violates those principles by giving private citizens – and by extension, the government – uncontrolled discretion to silence speech they dislike.”