Seattle Improperly Imposed a "Heckler's Veto" on Street Preacher at "an Abortion Rally and an LGBTQ Pride Event"

So holds the Ninth Circuit.

From yesterday's decision in Meinecke v. City of Seattle, written by Judge Jay Bybee, joined by Judges Margaret McKeown and Daniel Bress:

Appellant Matthew Meinecke's speech was not well received by his audience. On two separate occasions in June 2022—an abortion rally and an LGBTQ pride event—Meinecke sought to read Bible passages to attendees gathered in the city of Seattle. When those attendees began to abuse and physically assault Meinecke, Seattle police officers asked Meinecke to move and ultimately arrested him when he refused, rather than deal with the wrongdoers directly….

On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In response, a significant number of people gathered on Second Avenue outside the federal building in Seattle to protest the decision. Meinecke arrived that afternoon dressed in a shirt and tie and went to a public walkway adjacent to Second Avenue. According to his complaint, Meinecke "did not come to this event to condemn abortion" or even to "speak on this topic, but to convey his faith in Christianity to people who were in the area." He held up a sign, read from the Bible, and handed out Christian literature.

Protestors surrounded Meinecke after about an hour. One protestor seized Meinecke's Bible. Meinecke retrieved another Bible from his bag and continued reading aloud. Another protestor grabbed hold of—and ripped pages from—the new Bible. The altercation soon escalated. As protestors, some of whom Seattle police characterized in their written reports as Antifa, encroached, Meinecke took hold of an orange-and-white traffic sawhorse. Five protestors, some clad in all black and wearing body armor, picked up Meinecke and the sawhorse, moved him across the street, and dropped him on the pavement. One law enforcement officer who observed this interaction reported that "'Antifa' members … began to fight/assault" Meinecke.

Undeterred, Meinecke walked back to his original location by the federal building and resumed reading and held up a sign. While people gathered on the street, however, some approached Meinecke, knocked him down, and took one of his shoes.

Seattle police finally intervened. Although the officers acknowledged that the protestors had assaulted Meinecke, they took no action against the perpetrators. They instead ordered Meinecke to leave the area. The precise dictates of the officers' order are in dispute. Meinecke maintains that the officers instructed him "to go where no one could hear [his] message or read [his] sign." The City disagrees, claiming that Seattle police simply directed Meinecke to the other side of the street and that they told Meincke that he "could still display his banner and exercise his [F]irst [A]mendment rights."

Regardless, Meinecke declined to go to a different location. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction under Seattle Municipal Code Ordinance § 12A.16.010(A)(3), which provides, "A person is guilty of obstructing a police officer if, with knowledge that the person obstructed is a police officer, he or she … [i]ntentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a police officer." The officers took Meinecke to the police precinct and kept him there for about two hours; they did not book him. Meinecke was released after the abortion protest ended….

Seattle's annual PrideFest took place on June 26, 2022, two days after the Dobbs rally. The event was held at the Seattle Center, a public park. Meinecke, again dressed in a shirt and tie, entered the park around noon and began to read from the Bible in a conversational tone.

Eventually, PrideFest attendees noticed Meinecke's presence. As the district court found, they began "dancing near him, holding up a flag to keep people from seeing him," and making "loud noises so he could not be heard." According to his complaint, "a couple of attendees stood close to Meinecke and howled and barked like dogs, and mocked Meinecke, while he read passages from the Bible. Meinecke did not engage with them." Another individual poured water on Meinecke's Bible. Meinecke kept reading aloud.

After a couple of hours, more PrideFest attendees gathered around Meinecke and began yelling. This attracted the attention of about ten law enforcement officers, who asked Meinecke "to move to a public area located outside the park." Meinecke declined and continued to read from his Bible. A PrideFest attendee shouted at the officers, demanding Meinecke's removal. The officers then told Meinecke "that they were imposing a 'time, place, and manner' restriction on him and ordered him to leave the park." Again, Meinecke declined to leave. The officers told Meinecke "that he was posing a risk to public safety," and they again demanded he leave the park. Meinecke told the officers that he was not in any danger. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction.

Meinecke again was taken to the precinct. This time, though, the officers booked him. He was later released on bond. At his hearing a few days later, the City informed Meinecke that it was not pursuing the charges against him at that time, but it warned Meinecke that "it could bring up charges for this incident at a later time." …

The panel concluded that the government's actions were likely unconstitutional, and ordered that the government be preliminarily enjoined "from enforcing § 12A.16.010(A)(3) against Meinecke in public parks and streets based on the anticipated hostile reaction of an audience." The panel held that the actions were "content-based heckler's vetoes":

Our precedent on this point is clear: "The prototypical heckler's veto case is one in which the government silences particular speech or a particular speaker 'due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.'" As such, it "is a form of content discrimination, generally forbidden in a traditional or designated public forum." The Supreme Court has emphasized as "firmly settled" that "the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers, or simply because bystanders object to peaceful and orderly demonstrations." … "Listeners' reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation." …. It is apparent from the facts, including the video available from police body cameras, that the Seattle police directed Meinecke to leave the area because of the reaction his Bible-reading provoked at the Dobbs and PrideFest protests….

[T]he City maintains that the police officers merely sought to relocate Meinecke's speech rather than ban it outright…. But the government cannot escape First Amendment scrutiny simply because its actions "can somehow be described as a burden rather than outright suppression." …

Even assuming that the officers simply instructed Meinecke to cross the street, their directions burdened Meinecke's speech. Meinecke had a right, just as those participating in the anti-Dobbs rally or the celebration of PrideFest, to use public sidewalks and streets for the peaceful dissemination of his views….

And the panel concluded that this content-based speech restrictions couldn't satisfy the applicable "strict scrutiny" test, because it was not "the least restrictive means to achieve the government's interest in safety":

"If speech provokes wrongful acts on the part of hecklers, the government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not avoid doing so by suppressing the speech." … The officers could have required the protestors to take a step back from Meinecke. They could have called for more officers—as they did after Meinecke was arrested. They could have erected a free speech barricade. They could have warned the protestors that any sort of physical altercation would result in the perpetrators' arrests. And they could have arrested the individuals who ultimately assaulted Meinecke.

The City did none of those things. Instead, the police report on Meinecke's arrest simply recites that "[w]hen resources allowed in the past[,] SPD would try and keep the two opposing groups separated." That is hardly the sort of concrete proof necessary to establish that restricting Meinecke's speech was the only way to avoid violence….

Nathan W. Kellum (Center for Religious Expression) argued the case for plaintiff; Keith A. Kemper (Ellis Li & McKinstry PLLC) was also on the briefs.

Comments

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The officers then told Meinecke that they were imposing a 'time, place, and manner' restriction on him and ordered him to leave the park."

But your honor, we said the magic words!

[Krayt]

Wouldn't that ban all speech, not just his? I doubt that was done. And given it was spur of the moment in response to his speech, not anyone elses', again content.

[tkamenick]

That jumped out to me, too. Somebody taught them what to say, but clearly they don't understand what it means.

[juris imprudent]

Much like Congressional incantation of "interstate commerce".

[Dr. Ed 2]

The way this is taught in Higher Education is that the government can arbitrarily change or dictate the time, place, or manner of speech on the BASIS of content...

The specific example given was an anti-gay speaker whom UMass couldn’t ban, but they could use the time, the place, and the manner to silence him. Paul Cameron if I remember correctly, and he spoke at UM sometime back in the ’80s, before I was out there.

I know that is the exact opposite of what SCOTUS said but she was not only teaching the class but the administrator who told the campus police what they would do and whom they would arrest.

Yea, we have a problem…

[Stephen Lathrop]

In other heckler's veto news, the House of Representative has been imposing heckler's vetoes on elite universities, with Columbia the latest victim. That one was immediately followed by police vetoes of campus demonstrations.

[Krayt]

Shouldn't be done. Also, "Oh no! They're doing to us what we've been doing to them!" Shocked, shocked everyone is, to find gambling at the fine establishment of Congress.

[ReaderY]

Don’t you think there is a difference between making a speech on a public street where one has a right to be and trespassing in and obstructing work getting done in university offices where one doesn’t?

Also, the House of Representatives has the rght to decorate the pages of the Congressional Record with opinions on any subject it wants. Constitutional issues only arise with actual or threatened enforcement action. Just having Congress express an opinion on something doesn’t create a justiciable case or controversy.

[SimonP]

It's remarkable to me - given the NYTimes piece today about campus crackdowns on protests deemed "disruptive" or "antisemitic" - that Eugene's main contribution to the discussion was to share a platitudinous statement from Stanford about how the university is a place for hearing out and debating even "offensive" and "wrong" viewpoints.

There really couldn't be a clearer demonstration that the bounds of acceptable debate are managed implicitly by deeming some speech to be so "disruptive" or "threatening" as to be something other than speech, and so proscribable. It's just about where you draw that line - and clearly, university administrators are being cowed into drawing it between the Ben Shapiros media ops, on the one hand, and the peaceful pro-Palestinian sit-ins, on the other.

[ReaderY]

Given various reports of Jewish students encountering everything from being disrupted going to classes to out-and-out assault, the actual peacefulness of these protests is, to put it mildly, disputed.

[Nige]

So, not peaceful becuase of other stuff that may or may not have happened elsewhere.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That’s not what he said.

[Nige]

Oh, I'm sorry, did he pin-point some actual events related to the protest or did he just make vague speculations?

[damikesc]

So, death threats are OK as long as you don't actually kill people?

[Nige]

So for death threats that may or may have not happened elsewhere.

[Lee Moore]

peaceful pro-Palestinian sit-ins

A sit-in is, by definition, like any act of physical obstruction, not peaceful. This is because it relies on physical force. The lawful user of the space is prevented from using it as he wishes, not by words and argument, but by the weight of human butts parked on the floors, chairs, tables, whatev. (Let us stipulate, so as not to confound the argument, that no other act of force beside butts is involved - no break-in, no barricading, no nothing except parking your butt where you have no legal right to park it, and where the user has every legal right to require you to take your butt elsewhere.)

In order to reassert his control of the space to which he is entitled, the user must use counter-force to remove you and your butt, or if this is not permitted, must rely on the forces of law to do so for him. (Again we stipulate the absence of any further force by the butt deployers, eg clinging to furniture and fixtures, ot fighting the evicters.)

It is true that there are more severe forms of force, including those where the users of force seek to do physical harm to persons or property (again we stipulate that or sitters-in do not trash the place they are sitting in, cos that never happens 🙂 ) . But that does not prevent the merest sit-in from being the use of force, and therefore not peaceful.

The peaceful sit-in is an empty set.

For those who are accustomed to credit the conceit that sit-ins and obstructions are "peaceful" let us consider a wall of chubby (but unarmed) rednecks locked arm-in-arm blocking the entrance to a polling place, preventing the entrance of black voters. Is this a "peaceful" obstruction ?

No, it's not. It's not "violent" in that it involves no shedding of blood or dishing out of bruises. But it is definitely the use of force. And thus not "peaceful."

[Nige]

‘A sit-in is, by definition, like any act of physical obstruction, not peaceful’

I can certainly see where this is going, and soon you all will be calling for lethal force to be used against peaceful protests, justified on grounds of self defence, because ALL protest will be ‘violent.’ Except the right-wing ones with lots of guns.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, the amount of force here appears to have been quite proportionate to the level of criminal activity involved, I don’t see any need or value in escalation.

[Nige]

You don’t. Not sure that’s the sentiment shared by the ‘run-em-over-if-they’re-blocking-the-road’ crowd.

[damikesc]

Given the issues with their behavior, I see no reason to punish somebody who accidentally kills one with their car.

[Nige]

There's never a reason to punish someone who accidentally kills someone with a car, except for all the reasons why you would punish someone for killing a person with a car.

[Sarcastr0]

"Given the issues with their behavior" it's OK if they get killed...this is some collective guilt shit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A sit in is a violation of the fire safety laws and hence inherently violent as the fire laws were written in blood (i.e. in response to tragedy).

[Dr. Ed 2]

In NYC it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire 146 deaths...

[Josh R]

The comparison to the Columbia protests turns on whether the police action was based on the content of the protest. If so, the analogy works. If not, then not. So ask yourself, would the police reaction been the same had the protestors been pro-Israel or (to pick a different topic) pro or anti-John Sterling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: Columbia has a THOU SHALT NOT PITCH TENTS rule.
2: Pitching tents is inherently content neutral -- the Boy Scouts do it.
3: Columbia's concern was blocked egress --- that's content neutral.

But say, hypothetically, the Proud Boys had done this.
Do you even think they'd wait 36 hours before calling the cops?

[Stephen Lathrop]

JoshR, from where I sit, the comparison is founded on the question whether the House of Represenative's interrogation of university presidents turned on the content of protests at Columbia and elsewhere. It obviously did. Subsequent police actions at Columbia merely showed the abuse practiced by right-wing House members was momentarily effectual, whatever its chances to prevail long-term.

More generally, for those old enough to remember the 60s, the VC commenters' remarks above might as well be word-for-word replays. The question whether a replay of those events will produce an opposite result now could shortly prove salient.

For Lee Moore and others: history suggests the distinction will be resolved along different lines than you prefer—it will be a distinction framed as a contrast between violent and non-violent protest. It will not be between violent protest and peaceful protest. It is always true that those discomfited by protest find the experience un-peaceful.

Non-violent protestors historically did not shrink from acknowledging the disruptive character of their actions; when accused by critics like Lee Moore, they reasserted their intent to disrupt. They expressed intention never to stop disrupting, until they won their cause.

That turned out to be a tactic unstoppable except by resort to levels of violence society was unwilling to support. Do you urge reassertion of the practice to brutalize non-violent protestors? Are you prepared to lose your cause by infamous application of state-inflicted violence, as happened before? Or are you in fact hankering to reopen that older contest, with an eye to reversing its outcome?

[Josh R]

The House is not only permitted to investigate based on the content of speech, it is expected to and totally unremarkable that it does. It’s up to the voters to decide, not the courts applying the First Amendment, whether their representatives are worthy to be reelected.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Josh R, "permitted," not empowered?

What are you going on about? It sounds like you suppose right wing investigators in the House can advance notions you approve. That seems plausible to you, perhaps.

History has shown it can work, while citizens either cooperate or quail. When citizens have had enough, and show resolve to confront the investigators forthrightly and unapologetically, the politicians tend to cave.

A university president with everything to lose may seem a fat target. It will prove harder to intimidate students with almost nothing to lose.

Culture war investigations by Congress look almost as unpromising as former attempts to quash civil rights for blacks. The latter are remembered as shameful. Why step up for another helping?

[Josh R]

I have no idea what you are rambling about.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I know. It's obvious.

[Riva]

The House has imposed a heckler's veto on elite universities? How the F did they do that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

By funding them...

[Noscitur a sociis]

Whatever the merits of the congressional proceedings might be, in what conceivable sense do you feel they constitute a heckler’s veto?

[Lee Moore]

He was trying some "whataboutism" as Sarcastro would have rushed here to call it, had he not been suddenly called away to a conference in Poughkeepsie.

But he doesn't know how to do it properly. Be lenient. Practice makes perfect.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The most egregiously offensive takes by your ideological opponents are so often the completely hypothetical kind.

[Bob from Ohio]

"police vetoes of campus demonstrations"

The police were just decolonizing the field.

[John F. Carr]

A senior judge in the District Court and two senior judges on the appellate panel.

[DaveM]

A brave Christian! I love this part: "The officers told Meinecke 'that he was posing a risk to public safety,' and they again demanded he leave the park. Meinecke told the officers that he was not in any danger. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction."

[Krayt]

Man arrested because his face is obstructing attackers' fists.

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a Bizarro World we are living in when a single individual reading from the Bible (and being physically assaulted while doing so) is a threat to public safety.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Bible has caused plenty of threat to public safety -- perhaps more than any other manmade source, although that affliction continues to diminish as modernity and reason advance -- but not in this case.

[rloquitur]

What a pathetic loser you are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do my preferences (reason over silly superstition, science over childish dogma, inclusiveness over conservative bigotry and insularity, modernity over backwardness, legitimate education over ignorance and nonsense-teaching schools, modern America over illusory "good old days," etc.) bother you?

Or it is just a petulant reaction to getting stomped by your betters in the modern American culture war for more than a half-century?

[Frank Drackman]

My “Bettors?” you mean the heavy set ugly ones with beards and linebacker legs? The male ones are even worse

Frank

[juris imprudent]

Sadly Artie, humans don't really advance - they tend to just trade one set of beliefs for another. As Christianity hollows out, it is typically replaced by faith in Hegelian dialectics (and/or nihilism).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Humans advance.

Objecting to human advancement is the entire purpose of this blog.

[Frank Drackman]

I think you’re right for once, Penn State hasnt had a Rapist (convicted anyway) on their Coaching staff for quite some time

[Spinach Chin]

Hey, I was waiting for the "Retarded Luddite" take, thank you for that!

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK Kirkland (who I thought I had blocked) substitute Koran and tell me how this would have ended...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Similarly. One book of fairy tales is rarely much better than (or much different from) another, just as one flavor of childish superstition is about as worthwhile as any other.

[Rossami]

re: Bizarro World, remember that while that is what the police alleged, the court rejected that claim. So while it's disturbing that the police even tried, it's a comfort that they failed. We're not in Bizarro World yet.

At least not with regard to this case...

[Martinned2]

I wonder what the point is of an order like this:

The panel concluded that the government's actions were likely unconstitutional, and ordered that the government be preliminarily enjoined "from enforcing § 12A.16.010(A)(3) against Meinecke in public parks and streets based on the anticipated hostile reaction of an audience."

Isn't that basically ordering the government not to do something that it already knew was unconstitutional? The dispute was exactly about how to apply this test in the circumstances of the case. So in a future different case, even if it involves Meinecke again, how can this order have any effect over and above the actual Constitution?

[tkamenick]

This is how all injunctions work. There's a dispute over whether something is constitutional/legal. Court declares that it is not, enjoins defendant from doing that further.

[Martinned2]

Sure, but injunctions normally forbid someone from doing a specific thing, in a way that goes beyond simply restating the legal obligation they already had anyway.

[Kazinski]

The purpose of the injection is to put Seattle on notice that it's constitutional workaround claiming a "time place and manner" and public safety exception didn't pass muster. And in the future Seattle authorities would be expected to either protect the pastor, or let him get beat up (I think both pass constitutional muster), but not to to enforce the protestors wish to suppress his speech themselves.

[tylertusta]

or let him get beat up

That last one might still be unconstitutional if Seattle protects pro-abortion protestors while refusing to protect the pastor.

[Lee Moore]

Well aside from the order, there is the precedent set (or perhaps restated all joined up and in one place) in this case. The court confirmed that the incantation of "time, place, manner" does not convert a content based restriction into a time,place, manner restriction, offering this particular case as an illustration of how to distinguish actual time, place, manner restrictions from Potemkin ones.

Which precedent will presumably assist other people besides the doughty preacher in shooting down future police claims for qualified immunity.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

From a less fraught time, in a galaxy far far away...

http://www.cyberussr.com/adg/pastor-corbin.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The described conduct (among those who assaulted or threatened Mr. Meinecke and damaged his book) is repulsive, childish, and counterproductive. Those who attempted to vindicate Mr. Meinecke's rights have done the right thing.

[Barfer B. Jerkland]

I agree, my neighbor. Only left wing protestors should be allowed to protest. Right-wing clingers have no right to voice complaints anywhere, they are worse than serfs. When police officers arrest them for unjust reasons, they deserve it, because we're right and they're wrong.

[Nige]

Stop whining, you can take your guns and wave them at the kids going to next drag queen story hour, it’s fine.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You may want to try reading that comment one more time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I agree, my neighbor. Only left wing protestors should be allowed to protest.

With what do you agree?

How does an "academic" and/or "legal" blog attract such a remarkable concentration of illiterate, bigoted, stupid fans?

(Spoiler: It involves a bunch of disaffected, on-the-spectrum, bigot-hugging culture war losers who misappropriate the franchises of (mostly) legitimate schools to create a gathering place for right-wing misfits.)

[rloquitur]

Why aren't the cops being prosecuted? And why were the assaulters not arrested? The cops cannot take sides in these things.

[Longtobefree]

1. Because (D)
2. Because (D)
3. Yes, they can. And did.

[Lee Moore]

I would add :

Because Wussy Scaredeycat Cheeseeatin' Surrender Monkeys

[Nige]

Wait, hang on. Cops are (D)? Or is it that cops are suddenly (D) when they occasionally manage to abuse the rights of some right-wing creep? While the rest of the time we're kind of neutral about what they are?

[Dr. Ed 2]

They answer to D....

[Nige]

Donald, right.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Prosecuted for what?

[Lee Moore]

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

I find the the incantation of “time, place, manner” by the police (rightly ridiculed by the Appeals Court panel) quite good evidence pointing to the “wilfulness’ of the deprivation of 1A rights.

It indicates that the police had a pre-scripted play for imposing a heckler’s veto, whenever the need might arise. It’s not really something they would come up with on the spur of the moment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How often did you assert that former Pres. (and current serial defendant and courtroom loser) Trump should be imprisoned or fined for his deprivation of Americans' rights, clinger?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Why are assholes always talking shit behind Trump's back?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The assholes (and losers) are Trump's fans.

People who sugarcoat how deplorable Trump's supporters are deserve no respect.

[not guilty]

“I find the the incantation of ‘time, place, manner’ by the police (rightly ridiculed by the Appeals Court panel) quite good evidence pointing to the ‘wilfulness’ of the deprivation of 1A rights.”

The Court of Appeals got it right that, for purposes of the plaintiff’s as applied challenge, the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment claim for preliminary injunctive relief. Any prosecution of the police officers under 18 U.S.C. § 242, however, would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers acted with specific intent to deprive Mr. Meinecke’s First Amendment rights.

The specific intent required by § 242 is an intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 104 (1945) (plurality opinion). A jury could find that the officers’ invocation of the “time, place and manner” doctrine to be probative of a pretext to apply the statute in a content based manner. A jury, however, could also find that to be probative of reasonable doubt as to an officer’s specific intent under § 242.

A time, place, and manner regulation of expression must be content neutral, serve a significant government interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 804 (1989). The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality, in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys. Id., at 791. A regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government’s legitimate, content-neutral interests but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so. Id., at 798.

Per the Court of Appeals opinion, (p. 6,) Seattle Municipal Code Ordinance § 12A.16.010(A)(3) provides, “A person is guilty of obstructing a police officer if, with knowledge that the person obstructed is a police officer, he or she . . . [i]ntentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a police officer.” While the civil suit was an as applied challenge, the ordinance is not content based on its face.

A jury in a § 242 prosecution could infer that the officers’ twice directing Mr. Meinecke to different locations before arresting him was an attempt to respect his First Amendment rights by offering an alternative channel of communication.

[Michael P]

And monkeys could fly out of your butt.

If a jury found the anti-speech motivations you speculate, it would be because they have animus against Meinecke’s speech or because they favor authoritarian speech controls. If the police wanted to impose time, place and manner restrictions, they could not have imposed them only on Meinecke; by not imposing similar restrictions on those harassing Meinecke, those restrictions were clearly viewpoint-based.

[Lee Moore]

Thank you for that learned and measured analysis, with which I agree (though as IANAL my approval is worth squat.)

I agree that the jury could take take several possible views on the question, and the outcome would no doubt depend in part on :

(a) whether the jurors approved or disapproved of the police's action, which would make the venue quite important, and
(b) what evidence might be forthcoming from a review of the police training material, police messages and emails, and legal advice given to the police department (though as I understand it, piercing the veil of legal advice is generally difficult unless the defendant has something to do with Trump), and
(c) whether the appeals court was correct in concluding that moving the speaker across the road was still a 1A violation, and
(d) whether there was evidence that this was a police habit, not a one off thing

But I'm fairly confident that there are quite a few jurisdictions where the police officers would be convicted - if they tried this on folk the jury was sympathetic to. But in practice, the police probably know their jury pools well enough to be sure only to stop speech local jurors want stopped.

[Bored Lawyer]

Meanwhile, in the UK:

UK police threaten to arrest Jew as presence angers anti-Israel march

"You are quite openly Jewish; this is a pro-Palestinian march, I'm not accusing you of anything, but I'm worried about the reaction to your presence," said a police sergeant.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-797917?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=liked-message

So now in the UK, merely walking while looking Jewish is enough to set off protestors, and the authorities will ask you to leave.

Nothing anti-semitic to see here. Move along.

[Longtobefree]

Papiere, bitte.
Diese sind nicht korrekt, komm mit mir

[Nige]

Oh dear, if you take that as an isolated incident it does appear shocking, but if you're familiar with the UK police at all, not so much. Or rather, still shocking, but in a broader sense. Mind you, the UK police turning out to be wildly anti-semitic would be the least shocking thing ever, but I can guarantee you they're not pro-Palestine.

[Kazinski]

It should be reversed because the court noticed Indisputably inaccurate facts:

"The altercation soon escalated. As protestors, some of whom Seattle police characterized in their written reports as Antifa, encroached, Meinecke took hold of an orange-and-white traffic sawhorse. Five protestors, some clad in all black and wearing body armor, picked up Meinecke and the sawhorse, moved him across the street, and dropped him on the pavement. One law enforcement officer who observed this interaction reported that "'Antifa' members … began to fight/assault" Meinecke."

I've been assured there is no such thing as Antifa.

[tylertusta]

If they can't tell us what a woman is, then how can we expect them to tell us that Antifa exists?

[Nige]

Antifa and fake women are hiding under your beds.

[tylertusta]

Hello Nige!

Spring is finally here. Had to mow my lawn twice last week (first mow of the year!). It looks like the grass is fully awake and growing with a vengeance.

You doing OK? How's life treating you?

[Nige]

Are you sure the antifa and the fake women aren't lurking round the corner?

[AtR]

Reading through the comments, I'm reminded of the bastardization of Foucault, that there is no position so stupid that it has not been taken by an intellectual.