A City of Limited Speech: The Importance of Religious Neutrality within The First Amendment

An Evangelical Christian man, Gabriel Olivier, decided to preach his faith on a public sidewalk next to a city-owned park, near Brandon, Mississippi. He was arrested for the act, as his means of expressing his dedication to God and his religion went against local law. Unfortunately, he was removed from the premises and replaced in a more desolate space, with fewer people who could hear and retain his intended message. Because of this, Gabriel Olivier took it upon himself to move to a different, but more populated location, in order to get his point across. Afterwards, he was arrested for failure to obey the law the first time, and later fined for his crime before being let off. Olivier found this arrest and fine to be against the U.S. Constitution (more specifically, the Free Exercise Clause) and attempted to sue the federal court, who initially dismissed his case. By appealing this decision, although fined and not imprisoned, Olivier put the Supreme Court in a position to reconsider the fine in relation to the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

The salient issues regarding religion and constitutional law in this case are whether or not Gabriel Olivier has the right to preach his faith in a public forum without an established religion, that is property of the city and therefore property of the state. The Free Exercise clause guarantees that a person is able to freely exercise their religious convictions, utilizing methods such as speech, protest, and other various forms of expression. However, the Establishment Clause prohibits public gatherings, funded or otherwise endorsed by the government, should have no specific religion tied to it. This means that no religion should be established, or there should be equal treatment of all religions brought to attention by the organization. 

It is no secret that the tension between complete religious freedom and government involvement (censorship) of such acts is high, especially as the First Amendment offers strong protections on an individual’s rights to exercise and express their own beliefs. However, the fact that it also aims to ensure that no specific religion gets an upper-hand on the others from the government in a public setting must also be considered. In Olivier’s case, the primary concern is whether his religious expression in a public space infringes on the rights of others, or whether his actions could be seen as violating the regulation of separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, I do believe that allowing Gabriel Olivier to impose his beliefs on the public, acting in a state-owned forum in a religiously biased manner. While the Constitution does objectively protect the right to free speech and ability to take on any religion without persecution from the government, that is not to say there is no limit on speech in public spaces. For example, Americans are not given the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, or threaten assassination upon the President of the country. Although religious imposition is quite a step down from something this violent or duplicitous, it should be held to the same standard, as preaching one’s religious beliefs to disinterested bystanders (especially in a public space) is an attempt to persuade them to join one’s religion. This can cause unintended consequences for the broader public discourse, violating the notion of “peace and good order” guaranteed by the Madisonian values when emotionally charged factors such as exclusion come into play. 

In order to maintain religious neutrality, Olivier should be prohibited from attempting to teach Evangelical religion in a forum that is publicly owned by the government. Because it is a park owned by the government, this puts the public at risk for lack of separation between church and state. While Olivier has the right to freely express his faith, including in public spaces, the context of this situation poses the question of whether expression could be viewed as imposing a specific religious view on others, particularly in a public setting that may be intended for all members of the community regardless of their faith. Even if the government cannot restrict his speech solely based on its content, it still has the authority to regulate the manner in which speech is conducted in public areas, especially in spaces where large numbers of individuals from diverse backgrounds are gathered within state-owned property. Overall, the case raises important questions about the viability of local laws, and will set a precedent for interpretation of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, religious expression, and what constitutes a government-owned space in the future.