In 2012, Missouri passed the
Missouri House of Worship Protection Act, which criminalized behavior that “[i]ntentionally
and unreasonably disturbs … or disquiets” a house of worship through “profane
discourse [and] rude or indecent behavior” “so near [the house of worship] as
to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services” (Volokh).
Violations of the Act are misdemeanors. The Act has been controversial since
its implementation because of its apparent infringement of Freedom of Speech but
Missouri officials have defended it on the basis that it was enacted in order
to protect the Free Exercise of religion in private houses of worship.
Today—just three years after the Act’s
implementation—a US Court of Appeals has ruled that the Missouri statute is
unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech.
Months after the statute was passed, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by
Priests (SNAP), a non-profit organization, brought suit against the state
claiming that there First Amendment rights had been violated. SNAP regularly
protests on public grounds outside of a privately owned Catholic friary in St.
Louis where a priest accused of child molestation lives. One objective of
SNAP’s protest is to make the community aware of the accused child abuser by
holding signs that have pictures of abuse victims and handing out pamphlets.
This is of particular importance for them because there are four elementary
schools and 5 daycare centers within a mile of the Catholic friary.
In this case—SNAP v. Joyce— the District Court originally ruled that the statute
was constitutional, as they cited the compelling government interest to protect
Free Exercise of religion and that the statute was content-neutral. The Court
of Appeals, however, reversed the District Court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals
found that the state had provided no evidence of disturbances of houses of
worship and that the statute was not content neutral, as they concluded:
“The
Act’s regulation of profane and rude speech runs “a substantial risk of
suppressing
ideas
in the process…” It impermissibly requires enforcement authorities to look to
the content of the speaker’s message in order to enforce the statute. The ban
on “profane” speech, for example, also appears intended to protect audiences
from the effect that the content of certain messages may have on them. The
First Amendment guarantees that “the government may not prohibit the expression
of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.” This Missouri statute cannot survive strict scrutiny since §
574.035(3)(1) draws content based distinctions that are not necessary to
achieve the state’s asserted interest in protecting the free exercise of
religion” (quoted in Volokh).
The salient
issue regarding the constitutionality of the Missouri House of Worship
Protection Act is a clash between the First Amendment rights of Freedom of
Speech and Free Exercise. I agree with the Court of Appeals assessment that the
statute’s aim to protect the free exercise of religion goes too far. The act
also prohibits excessive noise and physical disturbance into the house of
worship. Both are reasonable prohibitions and, indeed, SNAP did not challenge
these provisions of the statute. The clause that bans “profane discourse [and] rude or indecent
behavior” (Volokh) near a house of worship, however, is clearly a violation of
Freedom of Speech because it involves a judgment of the content of the
expression. There is no clarification as to who deems what is profane, rude, or
indecent and this is clearly viewpoint discrimination by the state. I believe
that the vague language that is used in the statute strengthens the argument
that it violates Freedom of Speech. Clearly, some will be offended by the
messages of groups like SNAP. On the other hand, others may support the message
of groups like SNAP. We have dealt with viewpoint discrimination in cases like,
Lamb’s Chapel v. Moriches Union
Free School (1993) and Good News Club
v. Milford Central School (2001). In these cases, the Supreme Court ruled
that groups could not be excluded from a limited public forum because a subject
is discussed from a religious viewpoint because this exclusion violated Freedom
of Speech. SNAP v. Joyce is similar to these cases, although the infringement
of Freedom of Speech is even more glaring. SNAP and other organizations have
the right to protest on public grounds near houses of worship and the groups
cannot be censored just because some people find their message objectionable. A
religions ability to freely exercise is not impinged because they are offended
by the viewpoints of others. Therefore,
in the case of the Missouri House of Worship Act, the government’s suppression
of Freedom of speech and expression to protect free exercise of religion is
both unconstitutional and unnecessary.
2 comments:
I think that it is important to consider the free speech of the protesters as well as the free exercise of religion for the places of worship. The protestors may make worshippers uncomfortable with their presence, while at the same time, not being able to protest on public grounds is an infringement upon their free speech. I agree that excessive noise and physical disturbance and reasonable. The terms of rude and indecent behavior appear subjective though and would have to be decided by someone (not specified), which may foster government entanglement.
I agree with the Tommy that this Act is unconstitutional. Although I understand that people going to church do not want to be disturbed by protesters I also believe there is a greater state interest in protecting the freedom of speech in comparison to the want of the church goers to not be disturbed. There is no constitutional guarantee to be able to worship in peace, but there is a constitutional guarantee to being able to voice your opinion. So long as the protesters are not causing a public uproar or something of that sort, saying that a group can not have "rude or indecent behavior" "near a house of worship", severely inflicts with individual's rights to free speech and their right to profess their beliefs.
Post a Comment