1. On June 23, 2015 five appellants in Kansas City, Missouri were arrested for peacefully exercising their freedom of speech by holding informational signs about the war in Afghanistan. They were abiding by all state and local statues including the city’s loitering ordinance that states it is “unlawful for any person to . . . stand . . . either alone or in concert with others in a public place in such a manner so as to obstruct any public street, public highway . . . by hindering or impeding the free and uninterrupted passage of vehicles, traffic, or pedestrians" (§ 50-161(a)). The five appellants were standing between the curb and the sidewalk. There were complaints about “offensive signs” and the police requested that the appellants make
…show more content…
The appellants’ were holding a demonstration between the sidewalk and the curb of a highly trafficked intersection. The demonstration was not held on or near government property. Their intentions were to peacefully protest and provide information to the public about the war in Afghanistan. They did this by holding small signs and poster-sized signs that included color photographs of the mutilated corpses of dead civilians. While this symbolic speech may seem “offensive” it does not fall into the six categories for unprotected speech. Due to the offensive nature of the sign, the government may appeal that this speech is unprotected under the category of True Threats. If it is so, the government now has the burden of proving the appellants’ intent to threaten or intimidate with their speech, but this is not reasonable. The appellants’ symbolic speech was considered “offensive” to some viewers but the First Amendment “prevents the government from punishing people for simply expressing themselves in ways that some may find offensive or caustic” (Law for Air Force Officers). True threats also require “a reasonable person to interpret the speech as communicating intent to cause harm” so, while this speech may be difficult for some to accept, it is not against the law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has given guidance that “government may not regulate [speech] based on hostility –or favoritism– towards the underlying message expressed” (Law for Air Force
The appellants’ were holding a demonstration between the sidewalk and the curb of a highly trafficked intersection. The demonstration was not held on or near government property. Their intentions were to peacefully protest and provide information to the public about the war in Afghanistan. They did this by holding small signs and poster-sized signs that included color photographs of the mutilated corpses of dead civilians. While this symbolic speech may seem “offensive” it does not fall into the six categories for unprotected speech. Due to the offensive nature of the sign, the government may appeal that this speech is unprotected under the category of True Threats. If it is so, the government now has the burden of proving the appellants’ intent to threaten or intimidate with their speech, but this is not reasonable. The appellants’ symbolic speech was considered “offensive” to some viewers but the First Amendment “prevents the government from punishing people for simply expressing themselves in ways that some may find offensive or caustic” (Law for Air Force Officers). True threats also require “a reasonable person to interpret the speech as communicating intent to cause harm” so, while this speech may be difficult for some to accept, it is not against the law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has given guidance that “government may not regulate [speech] based on hostility –or favoritism– towards the underlying message expressed” (Law for Air Force