The Corner

Michigan Muslim Exception to the First Amendment

 Pastor Terry Jones and Assistant Pastor Wayne Sapp may be leaders of an obscure and failing micro-church, the Dove World Outreach Center, in Gainesville, Florida, but they are world class blasphemers against Islam. Earlier this month they applied for a permit to continue their public and provocative criticism of Islam — which this time was not to burn a Koran but to “peacefully … protest sharia and jihad” in front of the largest mosque in the United States, in the most Muslim area of the country. Not only was their protest, planned for last Friday, blocked by court order, but they were convicted by Michigan’s 19th District Court of being likely to breach the peace.


In March, the two pastors stirred international controversy and, in Afghanistan, lethal violence, by staging a Koran burning. On Friday, April 22, they had planned a two-man demonstration to protest “sharia and jihad” during the weekly prayer service outside the the Shiite Islamic Center of America, in Dearborn, Michigan. News of their application for a protest permit prompted at least four serious death threats against them from “metro Detroiters,” according to the police chief.  They were told by authorities they would have to cover the costs of a massive security effort for their protest, amounting to $46,000.  They refused and were promptly prosecuted on the afternoon of the 22nd. They were found guilty of intending to disturb the peace, ordered by the court to stay away from the Dearborn mosque for the next three years, and briefly jailed for refusing to pay the “peace bond,” to ensure there would be no public disturbance — a bond that the prosecutor had requested to be set at $46,000 but which the court had reduced to $1. It appears that the jury, judge, prosecutor and police chief, all feared that the planned protest would set off local Muslim riots or other violent actions.


Pastor Jones and Sapp are unsympathetic figures. Their anti-Muslim antics over the past seven months, when they first threatened to burn the Islamic holy book, have seemed designed as much to grab media attention for themselves as to deliberately insult Muslims.  But the First Amendment’s broad protections for free speech have been defined by court cases revolving around all manner of  unpopular speech and bigotry— from Ku Klux Klan leaders, Nazis, other racists and, most recently, anti-gay activists in a case involving protests at the funerals of fallen American soldiers.  Islam would be given deferential treatment if this decision is allowed to stand.


At the trial, the defendants represented themselves and no doubt could have benefited from legal counsel.  Because the court decision results in “prior restraint,” which is an unconstitutional restriction of speech, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh predicts that the case will be overturned upon further review.  In its amicus brief on behalf of the pastors, the Michigan branch of the ACLU provided the strongest legal argument for the defense. It is essential reading.


Here is the basic outline of the ACLU brief:


It is a basic principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that one may not be charged a price to engage in expressive activity because others may react negatively to that expressive activity.

In Forsyth County v Nationalist Party, the Supreme Court held that “[s]peech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” 505 US 123, 34-135 (1992). …

A. Charging a Demonstration Fee Based on the Anticipated Negative Reaction to the Message Conveyed in the Demonstration Constitutes an Unconstitutional Prior Restraint of Free Speech….

B. Requiring Pastor Jones to Pay a Peace Bond for Estimated Police Costs Based on the Anticipated Reaction to His Unpopular Message is an Unconstitutional Prior Restraint of his Free Speech….


A. The Peace Bond Statute Cannot Be Used to Suppress Speech in this Case Because Mr. Jones and Mr. Sapp Have Not “Threatened To Commit an Offense Against the Person or Property of Another.”…

B. Even If the Peace Bond Statute Was Intended To Be Used To Restrain Political Speech, Application of the Statute To the Facts of this Case Would Be Unconstitutional….

First, under Forsyth, supra, the government cannot set a fee as a condition of speaking based on the reaction of others; such action would constitute a content-based prior restraint on speech. Second, the speech at issue in this case is protected by the First Amendment and therefore cannot be punished in any way under state law as “an offense against person or property” or a “breach of the peace.” Brandenburg, 395 US at 449. Finally, the state cannot impose a “heckler’s veto” on the speech based on the speculation on how others might react to the message. Brown, 131 US at 133 n1 …

Nina Shea, Director, Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, is co-author with Paul Marshall of the forthcoming book, Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide

Nina Shea is the director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

Most Popular

White House

Nikki Haley Has a Point

Nikki Haley isn’t a Deep Stater. She’s not a saboteur. She wouldn’t undermine the duly elected president, no siree! That’s the message that comes along with Haley’s new memoir With All Due Respect. In that book, she gives the politician’s review of her career so far, shares some details about her ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More