SAN FRANCISCO – The first and fourth amendment rights of two pro-life activists were violated when law enforcement officers ordered them to remove their truck from an area near to a school and “unreasonably” detained them for too long, according to a federal appellate court ruling Wednesday.
Although the 7-by-20-foot truck displayed graphic photos of aborted fetuses, the government “cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear or even anger," concluded the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
“[T]he First Amendment does not permit a heckler’s veto,” the panel of three liberal judges added, referring to a concept which states that free speech cannot be limited based on listeners' reactions to the content.
On March 24, 2003, an employee and a volunteer of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform drove the truck bearing large photographs of aborted fetuses around Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes 30 minutes before classes began.
Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw a number children express anger over the images and that he observed two or three girls crying.
Ten minutes before the start of classes, school officials contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which dispatched two deputies, who stopped and searched the truck and another vehicle, then ordered the activists to leave the area, according to court documents.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform later filed suit, claiming that the pro-life activists’ first amendment rights were violated and that the deputy sheriffs violated their fourth and fourteenth amendment rights by unreasonably detaining them for seventy-five minutes. They also contended that the deputy sheriff’s had searched their vehicle without securing their consent.
In its ruling, the panel said they agreed that the seventy-five minute detention was “unreasonably long and therefore violated their Fourth Amendment rights.”
“[T]he officers at no time had any reason to suspect that the Plaintiffs had committed or were about to commit this crime,” the panel stated further.
They also unanimously ruled that school officials and sheriff's deputies violated the men's free speech rights by ordering them to leave the school's neighborhood, although they ruled that the individual deputies and school officials could not be held liable for the 1st Amendment violations because they are entitled to qualified immunity.
The latest ruling overturned an earlier district court judgment which upheld the school's and deputies' actions.
A lawyer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement."
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that there is no double standard for pro-life speech under our Constitution," attorney Robert Muise of the conservative Thomas More Law Center expressed in a statement.
“In its ruling, the Court upheld the fundamental principle of the First Amendment that government officials cannot prohibit silent, peaceful, non-obstructive, political speech on the public streets, a traditional public forum, because certain listeners or viewers find the speech offensive,” he added. Continue >>
Comments
When my son was 12 he was being homeschooled and the cable company did not have MTV and yet he and all his friends knew all about Beavis and Butthead even though none of them could watch them. My sister was teaching middle school science when the Challenger blew-up her greatest shock was not so much the disaster but the lack of response from her students. If anything pre-teens have become desensitized to things they had no business being exposed to at their age in the first place and unfortunately it appears to be getting worse.
Hey wb-
I'm surprised as well. The real problem is DVD/VHS in the houses with young children are filled with rated "R" and sometimes worse movies. Shoot, all you have to do is watch some of the sitcoms of this stuff anymore. I wondering if the "crying" kids they mentioned in this story were even existent to be honest.
I was shocked when I found out the nine year olds around my house have seen lots of R rated movies, including with lots of violence, and horror, and sex.
One option that hasn't been mentioned is a matter of stats. How many pro-life protestors would it take to eliminate abortion by adopting a woman in need and helping her? Sure there would be those who are not interested in that sort of thing but it would reduce abortion to being done just because the gal didn't want to be inconvenienced....
Didn't mean to make you see "red" on this. I don't know what planet you're on, but having taught in the schools I'd have to say it's a definite minority of kids this age group that hasn't seen a "blood and guts" type movie. I'd also challenge you to review the sex ed program of your local schools (jr and up) if you haven't already. If they're are old enought to be fed the sex ed material I've seen, then they're old enough to see an aborted "fetus".
rollin.
Uh, what? First of all, this is a middle school. Plain and simple. And like I said, six graders come into junior high not even as teens. Secondly, I assume you are grouping all these kids into "R-rated movie watchers". That is simply absurd. Some twelve year olds do not even know what sex really is, or what a murder scene looks like, and are (rightfully) shielded by their parents from such grotesque movies or whatever. Just because some are what you call "R-rated movie watchers", does not mean one should assume that all children have seen pictures that relate on a disturbing level as abortion photos.
And thirdly, what I find most disturbing about these radical pro-life messengers, is that some innocent children (like the ones who were seen crying) will have to carry those pictures for a long time in their head. Your parenting skills may be different than mine, or his, or hers, but I do not believe any child should have to inadvertently be subjected to such gross photos outside of school. I think it is a parent's choice to talk with his/her child about abortion or sex ed. That should not have to include photos like these.
blue-
Are you talking the same group of teens that watch R rated movies that show far more graphic material that is display on this truck.
Also, you obviously haven't reviewed some sex education programs that groups like PP help develop. In a way, they're far more graphic sexually.
I'm torn. I agree with the points made about the graphic images being shown to kids. However, I also agree that the reason abortion is still legal is that people want to pretend that they are not killing babies. I think its critical to get past the pretense that it is not killing babies.
Of course, I KNOW what many kids watch and play, and I would be surprised if many of them have not seen worse on TV, in movies/videos, or games. I also know 10 and 11 year old kids are having sex and babies. So it may be that the children were crying not because of the graphic images, but because they had had an abortion, and were confronted with the reality of the situation.
I think the legal approach to this situation was fair under our country's laws... but seriously.. this was a middle school. That is an absolutely disgusting approach to spreading one's message. Some of the children are not even teens! Very, very unappropriated.
adawn -
Some good points there, but I think you're missing something. The media, some politicians and the abortion industry have long been telling people to take a "close your eyes", "cover your ears", and "shut up" approach to abortion and all its atrocities while at the sametime lining their pockets with money.
The "shock" approach is just a method of saying, "Look, it's a real baby! We beg you, please, stop the murdering"
Otherwise, the public is brainwashed to simply think these babies are "blobs of tissue" or "a simple surgery".
Clearly the situation was handled inappropriately by the law. However, I find myself questioning the actions of the pro-life activist. While I absolutely agree that abortion is abominable in the eyes of God and that it is nothing less than murder, I would never condone driving a truck around a school displaying pictures of any other type of homocide. Shooting someone in the head is wrong as well... but would that make it alright to display pictures of the crime scene? It was completely inappropriate. Messages can be presented without vulgarity. Indeed, the act of abortion in and of itself IS vulgar... but I don't believe that justifies displaying this type of photo.
I'm glad to see the 1st amendment supported. But I do not like that school officials and police officers got off scot free for what they did. There should be some reprimand or something.