The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Suit Over Houston Park's Restriction on Displaying Videos of Animals Being Killed and Otherwise Unpleasantly Treated
From FIRE's press release (and you can read the Complaint here):
Today, the Law & Religion Clinic at the University of Texas and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, several Houston police officers, and Discovery Green Conservancy after police officers arrested an animal rights advocate for refusing to give up his First Amendment right to free speech in Discovery Green, a public park described as the "crown jewel of public spaces in downtown Houston."
The management of Houston's public Discovery Green Park was concerned that passers-by might be "offended" by the advocates' message. The officers' actions were a clear violation of the advocates' First Amendment right to speak freely in a public park —a park where peaceful protests happen regularly….
Several times during summer 2022, Dubash and Harsini went to Discovery Green to host a series of educational events. They held a television screen playing excerpts from a documentary about the mistreatment of animals, and they only spoke to people who engaged with them.
However, almost every time they demonstrated, park management and security asked them to leave, claiming that passers-by could be "offended" by their message. And so they complied. But the last time, Daraius stood his ground, calmly explaining to park management and security, "You still have to abide by the First Amendment because [the park] is publicly owned."
The park management's response? "Right. But we also choose, [and] we don't feel the content is appropriate."
When two Houston police officers arrived, Daraius again calmly explained his First Amendment rights. Yet the officers still arrested Daraius and handcuffed him to a chair in the park security office for more than two hours until he was taken to the county jail and charged with criminal trespass. The district attorney dismissed the charge….
The protesters were showing "video clips … taken from the documentary film Dominion":
The film features overhead shots of cramped pig stalls, pest-ridden duck living quarters, close-up shots of caged egg-laying chickens, and electrical prodding of cattle. In all, it covers the treatment of around two dozen types of animals….
The specific content of the videos—which show lawful, industry-standard practices like macerating baby male chicks (killing male chicks at birth who offer no economic value), or using farrowing or gestation crates (keeping pregnant pigs in small cages where they can only sit or stand, but not turn around)—causes some passersby to inquire what is being depicted.
(I've written about this broad issue in my Gruesome Speech article, primarily focusing on restrictions on showing gruesome images of aborted fetuses but also noting the connection with certain images of how animals are treated.) Some more allegations about the arrest incident:
[Park] Production Coordinator Floyd Willis … [told] Mr. Dubash: "I guess the problem before is like, what, the content of the videos."
The security guard added: "The problem before was the content of the videos. We did talk about that before. And I mean, Brian has asked me multiple times to come and talk to him … It's what he shows. So that's the only problem that Discovery Green has."
Willis reiterated that content ban to Mr. Dubash: "I, we're good with like, if you want to talk to people but, we're not comfortable with the TVs … the content on those."
Willis revealed Discovery Green Conservancy's criterion in administering a public park on the City's behalf is simply what it deems "appropriate."
Willis acknowledged Mr. Dubash's point that "you still have to abide by the First Amendment because [the park] is publicly owned."
But Willis ultimately stated: "Right. But we also choose, we don't feel the content is appropriate."
Notably, neither security nor police stated that the speech was unprotected. And on a half-dozen occasions, Mr. Dubash accurately noted that obscenity is limited to sexually explicit content….
[Later, o]ne security guard reiterated the video was not allowed because "it's chickens getting slaughtered." …
Officer Douglas assured Mr. Dubash that he was aware of the First Amendment's free speech protections.
But he then stated that "if you are showing offensive material he [i.e., Discovery Green management] does not like, you can't be here." …
Officer Douglas reiterated that the content was the problem, telling Mr. Dubash that his problem was "someone stabbing a goat or cow in the neck to kill them. That seems offensive." …
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So what's to stop people from going to parks and setting up giant screens depicting actual or realistic depictions of people getting slaughtered and tortured in vomit-inducing ways?
and?
So you'd have no problem with walking down the sidewalk and seeing a 10' screen showing, say, a child's penis being carved into tiny pieces with a knife? You wouldn't be bothered in the slightest by such a thing?
Content-neutral restrictions on the size 0f the screen?
Of course we'd be bothered by it. But any sane person will be a lot more bothered by a government that thinks it has the power to arbitrarily censor it.
It's a public park. The government has some authority to limit speech on public property but that authority is sharply limited. Nothing in the story above comes even close to the allowable boundaries.
I am a sane person and would not be bothered by a law prohibiting graphic depictions of violence against human beings in public spaces, with exceptions for displays that can be adequately screened so that the only people who witness them do so willingly or with full knowledge of what they could see (such as for public screenings of movies). I think such a law could very easily be written based upon the plain meaning of words like "mutilation" or "decapitation" that cover the sort of content that could turn your stomach upon seeing it even for a few moments.
The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech, is it?
Surely not. And it doesn't protect obscenity, either. I see no reason why the justifications for not protecting obscenity cannot be extended to extremely graphic and violent material.
With you as the judge.
No thanks.
The fact that you don't see why that's a bad idea is a big part of the problem. You (and people like you) can't be trusted to make that judgement.
Note: I (and people like me) can't be trusted to make such judgements either. The principle of Free Speech wisely says "don't even try". If you object to someone else's speech, you are perfectly free to express your objections but not to the point of censoring the other guy.
I think a ban on ten foot tall video screens IN A PARK is quite reasonable and one that I would support regardless of content, as long as it *was* regardless of content. Likewise 110 dB audio.
Time, place and manner -- I don't want The Sound of Music on 10 foot screens with Julie Andrews singing at 110 dB! It's time, place, and manner -- NOT content.
Pics of a 6 month abortion would be a good case to litigate
Nothing. And nothing could stop anti-abortionists from parading around with giant pictures of ripped up babies, even if kids in cars driving by could see it.
Content has nothing to do with it. This is raw freedom of speech.
We already have people showing pictures of aborted fetuses. Local radio host was complaining about it on the air but even he admitted they have a right to do it.
Who do these park officials think they are? A social media company?
Perhaps they think the park is their property, for which they can set any rules they think are "appropriate"?
Public park use is for the public and must reflect those values held by the public.
Excessive dominance of use should be discouraged, but also since the park is for the public, its use must reflect the purpose of the park's reason for being created.
Public spaces must not be held captive by one group or another whereby those uses prohibit others from enjoying those spaces for their intended purpose.
A park is created and has an intended purpose by the very content of the elements contained in the park, and those elements define the park's normal reason for being created, and hence how it is to be used.
Prohibitions always apply to any public space, but, as being for the public, parks must also serve the public's needs, wants, and desires in communicating the values of the public.
You do realize that "the public" includes people like Dubash and Harsini, right? They have just as might right to use that public space for any legal purpose as you or I do.
Still, it's the best argument in favor of restriction -- parks are not set up for any purpose, but for picnics, enjoying nature, get togethers, etc. I don't see running up to other groups and shoving disturbing pictures in their face there.
Note I am not saying it is a sufficient argument. It will take about 14 and a half seconds for censorious government weasels to start defining purposes for stuff from parks to roads, leaving out speech they don't like.
Recall "Free speech zones" fun over the years, from approved zones well away from the path some foreign dignitary is taking, to unrestricted "free speech kiosks" well away from any beaten path.
The content-neutral solution would be to allow anyone else with different views to have equal time and opportunity to present their views in the park, not to shut down whatever some unelected bureaucrat arbitrarily decided was "inappropriate".
Yeah, that worked so well last time they tried it. Only two views? Oh, right, two hundred, two thousand, two million, whoops, we're right back where we are now.
In fact, everyone else was free to express their views there, at that time, in that place. Only two bothered.
https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/styles/833xy/public/2023/09/SP109609.webp?itok=ibz4_0Ud
Unless public park video exhibition suddenly becomes a lot more popular than it is now, existing public spaces are probably able to host everyone who wants to engage in it. And if space does become a legitimate (as opposed to an obviously fake) concern, there are certainly "content-neutral" ways of allocating time and space to those who are competing for the limited public resources.
Yeah, we should definitely be electing park security guards. After all, they sometimes write stuff down, and that's what bureaucrats do. Obviously if they were elected, they wouldn't need to keep records like some kind of bureaucrat.
"Unlike my opponent, I actually am capable of staying awake for 8 hours!"
Oh, wait. That's also presidential debates.
Are they films of people killing tasty animals? I'm always for killing tasty animals (in a humane way, of course).
Back to 8th grade in the morning, Jerry. Remember to brush your teeth and be in bed by 10.
"park management and security asked them to leave, claiming that passers-by could be "offended" by their message."
Ah yes, the famous "people-might-be-offended" exception to the First Amendment. I think I missed that one in law school, but maybe I had a head cold that day.
What is obscenity law but the famous “people-might-be-offended” exception to the First Amendment?
This is just our cultural fear of sex over violence coming home to roost.
This is basically a loophole in the law. Free speech isn't supposed to include the right to force unwilling people to listen to you. But the whole reason the groups are showing these videos *is* to force unwilling people to see them.
This is… not a loophole in the law; free speech absolutely is supposed to include the right to force unwilling people to listen to you — in public — if by "force" you mean "saying it where they can hear it."
Unless it's a campus and you are a student, or a business, which may not be public, but somehow authorizes government censorship because of it wait what?
First they came for the people getting rocks off by screening crush videos in public parks, and I did not speak out because I dislike crush videos.
Next they came for the Animal Liberation Front type people screening animal snuff films in public parks, and FIRE spoke out for them.
They were only showing animal abuse, it's not like they were protesting abortion and or something equally appaling.