On Friday, August 11, I traveled to Charlottesville, Virginia to attend my co-clerks wedding. I was generally familiar with the controversy over the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, but was not aware that white supremacist demonstrations were scheduled for the weekend. After the rehearsal dinner wrapped, I drove back to the hotel along Main Street. As we approached the Rotundathe center of the campus designed by Thomas Jefferson himselfthe traffic ahead suddenly slowed to a crawl. In the distance, we saw some lights. At first glance, it appeared to be a candlelight vigil, but we quickly realized what was going on. Hundreds of white nationalists with torches were walking down the steps of the Rotunda, chanting something incoherent, though the word Jews was distinctly pronounced. The sight was surreal; I was more stunned than afraid.
Our hotel was a few blocks away. We drove back to the room, and checked #Charlottesville on Twitter to see what was going on. Moments earlier, the police had declared the gathering an unlawful assembly, and broke it up. (Some reports suggest pepper spray was fired).
This scene, however, was but a mere prelude. Saturday at noon, the Nazis planned to assemble at Emancipation Park, formerly known as Lee Park, to protest the removal of the Lee statue. Unsure of what would happen, we decided to spend the day out of town at Montpelier, the estate of James Madison. There was a strange aspect of visiting the home of the primary author of the First Amendment, while miles away, that same First Amendment was enabling contemptible bigots to inflict violence and, tragically, the loss of life.
The Battle of Charlottesville will be studied in many quarters for many years, but this early entry will focus on the role played by the First Amendment.
Kessler v. City of Charlottesville
On May 30, Jason Kessler applied for a permit to hold a rally on August 12 in Emancipation Park. According to his attorneys at the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute, he chose that location because the Plaintiff wishes to communicate a message that relates directly to the Parkspecifically, his opposition to the Citys decisions to rename the Park, which was previously known as Lee Park, and its plans to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from the Park. (I have been quite critical of the ACLU for its caving on certain free speech issues, but here, and with its defense of Milo Yiannopoulos, the organization is staying true to its historic mission). Kessler estimated that 400 people would attend, and stated that he absolutely intends to have a peaceful rally and his group would avoid violence. Initially, the City of Charlottesville granted Kesslers application, and also those of other counter-protestors. After the application was granted, however, business leaders in Charlottesville urged that the rally be moved to McIntire Park, which was a mile away. McIntire Park is much larger and has far fewer entrances. Thetopic was also discussed at City Council meetings. Members of the Council spoke out against the white supremacists on social media.
On August 7, the City revoked Kesslers permit, modif[ying] the application to allow a rally in the larger McIntire Park. The city cited safety concerns based on the number of people who were expected to attend Kesslers rally. Specifically, the government explained that holding a large rally at Emancipation Park poses an unacceptable danger to public order and safety. No sources were provided to justify those concerns that had come to the Citys attention. The government cited conservative estimates of no less than 1,000, with as many as 2,000 or more counter-demonstrators in attendance based on internet-based marketing efforts by the Plaintiffs. While Kesslers permit was revoked, the city did not revoke the permits of the counter-protestors, who were still approved to rally within blocks of Emancipation Park.
On August 10, Kessler sought a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, barring the City from revoking the permit to protest in Lee Park. The motion stated that the City will suffer no harm to its legitimate interests if preliminary relief is granted. Regardless of where the demonstration takes place, the City has an obligation to secure and protect the safety of the demonstrators and the public. The lawyers added that [t]he City's expressed desire to provide security and protection at an alternative site because it would be easier to do so . . . is not a sufficiently substantial governmental interest to override Plaintiff's First Amendment right.
The following day, the City of Charlottesville filed a brief in opposition to Kesslers motion for a preliminary injunction. The government argued that the decision to move the plaintiffs protest from Emancipation Park to McIntire Park was justified without reference to speech content or the Plaintiffs viewpoint,  was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and  left open ample alternative channels for communication. The government added that Kesslers complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to support a claim that the City and Mr. Jones were motivated by fears about how counter-protesters will respond to the Plaintiffs rally.
The judiciary would disagree. After a hearing, on the evening of Friday August 11, Judge Glen E. Conrad issued a preliminary injunction, requiring the City of Charlottesville to allow the white supremacists to assemble in Emancipation Park. (The federal courthouse is about three blocks from that park). The court dismissed the governments speculation about the crowd size, concluding that there is no evidence to support the notion that many thousands of individuals are likely to attend the demonstration. Crucial to Judge Conrads analysis was the fact that Kesslers permit was revoked, but the permits of the counter-protestors were not:
The disparity in treatment between the two groups with opposing views suggests that the defendants' decision to revoke Kessler's permit was based on the content of his speech rather than other neutral factors that would be equally applicable to Kessler and those protesting against him. This conclusion is bolstered by other evidence, including communications on social media indicating that members of City Council oppose Kessler's political viewpoint.
Leave aside for now the significance of the court looking to statements on social media by members of government that conflict with the Citys official position to find animus. The courts analysis focused exclusively on the irreparable harm that would be faced by Kessler. There was scant mention of the possible harms to public safety. The closest the court came to addressing this point was noting that a change in the location of the demonstration would not eliminate the need for members of the City's law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel to appear at Emancipation Park. Instead, it would necessitate having personnel present at two locations in the City. But beyond these sentiments, the opinion hinged almost entirely on the fact that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.
Free Speech on the Grounds
In hindsight, the value of the protestors speech was minimal; the cost to public safety was tragic. Shortly after Judge Conrads ruling was issued, the torch-lit demonstration began at the Rotunda. Many were injured as torches and other projectiles were thrown. Roughly twelve hours later, the riots would commence at Emancipation Park. It is rare that a judicial decision can have such an immediate and palpable effect on both public safety and individual liberty.
By the end of the horrific day, there were more than three-dozen injuries. Heather D. Heyer was murdered. Two Virginia State troopers died when their helicopter crashed outside of Charlottesville. (I observed the helicopter hovering over Emancipation park throughout the day). Shortly after the violence began, the Mayor of Charlottesville tweeted, For all watching events in crowded, downtown Cville: this is EXACTLY why City tried to change venue to McIntire-but court wouldnt allow. Had the protest been held at the larger McIntire park, perhaps the police could have kept a stronger control on crowd size, and automobile traffic. Perhaps not.
As a matter of First Amendment law, Judge Conrads opinion is correct. The Citys decision to revoke the plaintiffs permit, but not those of the counter-protestors, gave rise to a very strong presumption that the decision was made based on the content of the nationalists speech. My understanding is that the City merely overlooked revoking the other permits. This blunder, however, provided the basis of the courts decision.
Moreover, there was no concrete evidence that the crowd size would increase, beyond the speculation based on social media traffic. Merely asserting a generalized interest in safety, without more, cannot justify the revocation of the permit in this manner. Indeed, had the permit never been granted in the first place, the City could have avoided the presumption of animus against the plaintiffs bigoted speech. Much attention will be paid to how the Charlottesville Police Department managed the affair. The Citys attorneys also deserve some scrutiny. Had the case been lawyered better from the outset, the analysis would be much closer. If the government could have shown that in the larger park, traffic could have been better cordoned off, the requisite scrutiny may have been met. But here we are.
The Social Costs of the Bill of Rights
The constitutional questions here are difficult and complex. As usual, Justice Robert H. Jackson stated the issue far better than I possibly could. Here is an excerpt from his iconic dissent in very apt case of Terminello v. Chicago:
[U]nderneath a little issue of Terminiello and his hundred-dollar fine lurk some of the most far-reaching constitutional questions that can confront a people who value both liberty and order. This Court seems to regard these as enemies of each other and to be of the view that we must forego order to achieve liberty. So it fixes its eyes on a conception of freedom of speech so rigid as to tolerate no concession to society's need for public order. . . .
But if we maintain a general policy of free speaking, we must recognize that its inevitable consequence will be sporadic local outbreaks of violence, for it is the nature of men to be intolerant of attacks upon institutions, personalities and ideas for which they really care. In the long run, maintenance of free speech will be more endangered if the population can have no protection from the abuses which lead to violence. No liberty is made more secure by holding that its abuses are inseparable from its enjoyment. We must not forget that it is the free democratic communities that ask us to trust them to maintain peace with liberty and that the factions engaged in this battle are not interested permanently in either. . . .
This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
The Battle of Charlottesville illustrates, once again, the social costs imposed by the Bill of Rights.
See original here:
The First Amendment on the Grounds in Charlottesville - Lawfare (blog)
- Florida education news: First Amendment rights, flu shots and another superintendents struggles - Tampa Bay Times - November 16th, 2019
- First Amendment rights are not a one-way street - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle - November 16th, 2019
- First Amendment conference explored diminishing local news as a 'crisis of democracy' - The Daily Tar Heel - November 16th, 2019
- The 'Evil' First Amendment - The American Conservative - November 16th, 2019
- First Amendment website launching by end of November - University Star - November 16th, 2019
- LTTE: We all have business exercising our First Amendment rights - Rocky Mountain Collegian - November 16th, 2019
- "The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, And The Future Of Dissent" - WAMC - November 16th, 2019
- Trump Attack on Envoy During Testimony Raises Charges of Witness Intimidation - The New York Times - November 16th, 2019
- Facebook has a political fake news problem. Can we fix it without eroding the First Amendment? - NBC News - October 27th, 2019
- The Panhandling Problem: When public safety clashes with the 1st Amendment - WCJB - October 27th, 2019
- Can a black high school guard be fired for quoting the n-word? | TheHill - The Hill - October 27th, 2019
- The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent - The Humanist - October 27th, 2019
- Liz Cheney Calls Out Dems' New House Bill Intended to 'Circumvent the First Amendment' - Townhall - October 27th, 2019
- Mitch McConnell slams election-security bill as 'transparent attack on the First Amendment' - The Washington TImes - October 27th, 2019
- Are Corporate Employees Protected by the First Amendment? - IPWatchdog.com - August 25th, 2017
- NAACP asks for meeting with Goodell over Colin Kaepernick's First Amendment rights - CBSSports.com - August 25th, 2017
- The ACLU was practicing a core First Amendment duty - Washington Post - August 25th, 2017
- Letter: The right has hijacked the First Amendment to preach hate ... - INFORUM - August 25th, 2017
- Lawyer who objected to mandatory bar's PAC contribution loses First Amendment appeal - ABA Journal - August 25th, 2017
- LA Times: Restrict the Second Amendment at First Amendment rallies - Hot Air - August 25th, 2017
- Is advocating suicide a crime under the First Amendment? - OUPblog (blog) - August 22nd, 2017
- Letter First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society - Petoskey News-Review - August 22nd, 2017
- How far do the First Amendment's protections go when it comes to hate speech? - The San Diego Union-Tribune - August 20th, 2017
- First Amendment in Peril? - City Journal - August 20th, 2017
- Letter: Peculiar First Amendment interpretation - MetroWest Daily News - August 20th, 2017
- Police must act fast to protect First Amendment rights: Robert Shibley - USA TODAY - August 18th, 2017
- Podcast: Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog) - August 18th, 2017
- How groups use 'First Amendment' permits for protests at National Parks - ABC10 - August 18th, 2017
- Last weekend's violent protests prompt First Amendment conversation - WBKO - August 18th, 2017
- Equality, Justice and the First Amendment - ACLU (blog) - August 18th, 2017
- Between the lines: Cops caught in the First Amendment war zone - Police News - August 18th, 2017
- Theres no hate speech exception to the First Amendment - The ... - August 16th, 2017
- First Amendment banned from DC Metro literally! - Washington Post - August 16th, 2017
- There's No 'Nazi' Exception to the First Amendment - National Review - August 16th, 2017
- FIRST AMENDMENT: How far does it go? - Evening News and Tribune - August 15th, 2017
- Why the First Amendment won't protect Charlottesville white supremacists from being fired - MarketWatch - August 15th, 2017
- Can a Court Arbitrarily Conclude That 'Security' Overrules the First Amendment? - Reason (blog) - August 15th, 2017
- March on Google: Self-proclaimed 'First Amendment supporters' to ... - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - August 15th, 2017
- Militiamen came to Charlottesville as neutral First Amendment protectors, commander says - Washington Post - August 14th, 2017
- Editorial, 8/13: Court strikes right balance on Westboro ruling - Lincoln Journal Star - August 14th, 2017
- Beyond the First Amendment - Washington Times - August 14th, 2017
- Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment - Washington Examiner - August 13th, 2017
- Jeffrey Lord: 'CNN caved on the First Amendment' when it fired him - Fox News - August 13th, 2017
- First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block ... - WJLA - August 13th, 2017
- DC's transit agency rejected ads touting the First Amendment (really) - Ars Technica - August 11th, 2017
- Symposium: A path through the thicket the First Amendment right of association - SCOTUSblog (blog) - August 11th, 2017
- ACLU Sues DC Metro After It Rejects Ad With Text Of 1st Amendment - NPR - August 11th, 2017
- Jeffrey Lord Speaks Out on Firing: 'CNN Caved on the First Amendment' - Mediaite - August 11th, 2017
- Newseum provides first amendment perspective - FederalNewsRadio.com - August 11th, 2017
- The First Amendment (Literally) Banned in DC - ACLU (blog) - August 10th, 2017
- Inside the First Amendment: When leaks dry up, we turn to FOIA ... - Meridian Star - August 10th, 2017
- The Fired Google Engineer, the First Amendment, and the Alt-Right - Xconomy - August 10th, 2017
- The First Amendment won't protect you from saying something your company doesn't like - Marketplace.org - August 9th, 2017
- The First Amendment: Freedom of speech in the workplace - WDAY - August 9th, 2017
- ACLU, Rutherford Institute say permit revocation violates First Amendment - The Charlottesville Newsplex - August 9th, 2017
- No shield needed: The First Amendment works just fine - The Union Leader - August 9th, 2017
- Liberal Students Unite Against First Amendment Rights of Conservatives on 'The Fosters' - NewsBusters (press release) (blog) - August 9th, 2017
- Bill Bennett on Leaker Journalists: First Amendment Not a License to ... - Fox News Insider - August 8th, 2017
- Country Singer Dustin Collins: 'Without the Second Amendment, There Is No First Amendment' (Exclusive) - Breitbart News - August 8th, 2017
- First Amendment: When leaks dry up, we turn to FOIA - hays Post - August 6th, 2017
- Letter: Anti-boycott law violates the First Amendment - Santa Cruz Sentinel - August 6th, 2017
- No Free Speech for You - Slate Magazine - August 5th, 2017
- EDITORIAL: First Amendment 2.0 - Loudoun Times-Mirror - August 5th, 2017
- In 'Direct Attack on the First Amendment,' Sessions Declares War on Leaks - Common Dreams - August 5th, 2017
- McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter - Boston Herald - August 4th, 2017
- How the First Amendment could save Don Jr. - The Hill (blog) - August 3rd, 2017
- Police confront 'First Amendment auditors' - Post Register - August 3rd, 2017
- Loudoun County resident's First Amendment case may benefit free-speech group's suit against Trump - Loudoun Times-Mirror - August 3rd, 2017
- Justice Souter, the First Amendment and the case of the synagogue standoff - Reuters - August 3rd, 2017
- RTDNA Joins Free Press Groups in Tracking First Amendment Abuse - Broadcasting & Cable - August 3rd, 2017
- Peter Berger: Students and First Amendment rights - vtdigger.org - August 3rd, 2017
- HiQ v. LinkedIn: Does First Amendment limit application of computer ... - Reuters - August 2nd, 2017
- SMU Becomes the Face of the Collegiate War On The First Amendment - The Hayride - August 2nd, 2017
- Promoting First Amendment censorship - Herald and News - August 2nd, 2017
- Court Rules Randall Violated First Amendment on Facebook - Loudoun Now - August 1st, 2017
- Free Speech & Republicans: First Amendment Trumps Punishing ... - National Review - August 1st, 2017
- The First Amendment: Free press, open meetings laws survive RI State House standoff - The Providence Journal - August 1st, 2017
- Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions - The Daily Progress - August 1st, 2017
- Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights - Tulsa World (blog) - August 1st, 2017
- Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Virginia ... - Roanoke Times - July 30th, 2017