Introduction
The law may not always be fair or reasonable but that cannot allow for cherry-picking in when to follow it or not to. It is mainly for the sake of this reason that fundamental rights are established, which are legal provisions that need to be adhered to even under extreme circumstances. In the USA, fundamental rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights with the first Amendment relating to the inalienable right to hold beliefs and also express them ( RAV v. St. Paul, 1992). It is this First Amendment that forms the cause of action in the case of Bible Believers v. Wayne County, Mich., 805 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2015). In the instant case, a group of Christians successfully sue Wayne County for being forbidden to protest within an Arabic festival. A reasonable person may argue that an Arabic festival would be the worst possible place to shout profanities against Prophet Mohammed but as this research paper reveals, fundamental rights are definite and not the subject of rules of reasonableness.
Facts of the Case
As outlined in the ruling, the Appellants Bible Believers were escorted out of the site of an Arabic festival by representatives of the Respondents, Wayne County, who happened to be police officers. The reason given by the police officers was that the words being expressed by the Appellants were likely to cause violence and the Respondents did not have enough manpower to prevent such violence ( Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015). The Arabic festival in question attracts hundreds of thousands of people from around the world, and predominantly Muslim. The Appellants, on the other hand, are evangelical Christians who not only believe that anyone who is not a Christian including Muslims is wrong and going to hell but also that they have an obligation to aggressively communicate their belief. To effectively communicate their message, the Appellants carried banners that insulted Prophet Mohammed and also carried aloft the head of a pig as a means of keeping Muslims at bay as they consider any contact with pigs a taboo. However, in a place filled with tens of thousands, only a few people, mainly teenagers seemed to pay attention to the Appellants ( Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015). A few teenagers also threw plastic bottles at the Appellants but only when there were no police officers in sight. At no time did actual violence break out or almost break out. Finally, it is worthy of notice that all the above took place in a public street, although the street had been set apart for the festival.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Brief Procedural History
The Appellants first moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on the 25 th day of September 2012, but a prayer for summary judgment by the Respondents was allowed dismissing the suit. The matter was then heard on appeal by a three judge-bench before the 6 th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the decision of the aforesaid District Court. A subsequent application to be heard on appeal en banc was allow leading to the decision being canvassed herein ( Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015).
The Decision of the Court
The 6 th Circuit Court of Appeals arrived at a split decision that was filed on the 28 th day of October 2015. The majority decision found in favor of the Appellants and not only reversed the decision to summarily dismiss the suit but also entered summary judgment for and on behalf of the Appellants.
The main focus of the decision was on the concept of heckler’s veto. The heckler's veto is said to come into play when one person is silenced merely because another person disagrees with what is being said. In the instant case, the Appellant kept repeating something that the Muslims in the Arab Festival could not agree with whereupon police officers, acting for the Respondent demanded that the Appellants leave ( Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015). The court, however, held that both religious freedom and freedom of speech are absolute rights in the USA as protected by the First Amendment. Fundamental rights are not to be availed to all citizens subject to convenience but rather at all times. Indeed, according to the court, it is when what is being said does not please those who are not hearing it that the right to say it comes to the fore. This is based on the fact that the USA is a community of immigrants and is thus made up of different peoples who hold varied opinions ( Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015). As the court argued, the opinion of one person cannot be given priority over the opinion of others in public discourse. Based in this, unless there are extreme exigent circumstances, the Appellants should have been allowed to express themselves and the Arab Festival attendees had a choice not to listen to the Appellants. The police could only have intervened if there was a clear apprehension that massive violence was about to ensue, which according to the court was never the case ( Bible Believers v. Wayne County, 2015).
Discussion: Analysis and Impact of the Decision
A careful evaluation of both the facts of the case and applicable laws clearly reveal that the majority decision’s holding above was both accurate and warranted. Two main issues stand out with regard to the case, the first being the freedom to express an opinion that offend others with the second being application of the due procedure. Regarding the first issue, the Appellants definitively believed and spoke things that would reasonably offend any Muslims. They also chose to say those things specifically to a predominantly Muslim audience. Despite the fact that saying such things would offend listeners, it is already settled through the Supreme Court case RAV v. St. Paul , that offending listeners is not grounds for infringing in the First Amendment right for self-expression ( RAV v. St. Paul, 1992).
The only reason that the appellants would have been silenced was if exigent circumstances existed. In this regard, it is also settled law, as set out in Gitlow v. New York , 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925) that due procedure must be followed when First Amendment rights were being denied for any reason whatsoever ( Gitlow v. New York, 1925). In the instant case, the actions of the representatives of the respondent did not reflect adherence to the due procedure with regard to the Appellants hence it was unlawful. It is in this part that the government went wrong. If a situation arose where the utterances of one group seemed to offend another group, the government should have acted in a manner that does not make it seem that one group is being favored over the other. Further, individuals who hold functions on public spaces should be made aware that they should expect and accept dissenting voices
Conclusion
As far as reasonableness is concerned, no person should storm a function being held by individuals who hold a certain religious belief and actively insult such as belief. However, what makes America special is the fact that everyone is allowed to hold their own beliefs and also freely express them, more so in public places. The right to express those beliefs are fundamental and should be provided for more so in the face of descent. It would be easy to conclude that what the Appellants in the instant case did was unreasonable and perhaps indecent but it was never illegal. Fundamental rights are put in place to protect those rights that even the majority might not consider right or reasonable. The 6 th Circuit Appellate Court sought to protect that fundamental right in the instant case, making their ruling the correct decision
References
Bible Believers v. Wayne County, Mich. , 805 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2015).
Gitlow v. New York , 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925).
RAV v. St. Paul , 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992).
