Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, Inc. v. Jennifer M. Joyce, et al.

UNITED STATES

Title:
Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, Inc. v. Jennifer M. Joyce, et al.

Court:
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Citation:
779 F.3d 785

Date:
9 March 2015

Instrument(s) Cited:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution (freedom of speech)
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (due process)
Missouri House of Worship Protection Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. §574.035)

Case Summary:

Background:  
Two Missouri non-profit organisations and two individuals challenged Missouri’s House of Worship Protection Act arguing that it infringed their First Amendment freedom of speech rights. One of the complainants had regularly picketed a cathedral in Kansas City, Missouri after his two sons were abused and raped by a Catholic priest. The Act prohibited the intentional disturbance of a “house of worship by using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior…either within the house of worship or so near as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services.”

Issue and resolution:
Freedom of speech. Whether an act prohibiting the protest of sexual abuse and other public issues outside places of worship is constitutional. The Court reversed the district court’s judgment and ruled that the House of Worship Protection Act is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.

Court reasoning:
The consequences of the House of Worship Protection Act were deemed to be of special concern because the area surrounding a house of worship is an ideal location for complainants to locate and communicate directly with church members and concerned public. The Act, in attempting to protect worshippers and church personnel, specifically banned the disruption of a house of worship by profane discourse and rude or indecent behavior, without addressing any other means of disruption. Because the ban targeted the nature of the message conveyed (i.e. messages that are profane, rude or indecent) and was designed to protect against the potential impact certain messages would have on worshippers (i.e. disruption), the Act was found to be “content-based”, meaning that it restricts the expression of certain content.  The Court held that the prohibitions placed on profane or rude speech were not necessary to protect the free exercise of religion because the Act sought not only to protect houses of worship from disruption, but also to limit the content of certain messages. The House of Worship Protection Act was therefore found to violate the First Amendment and to be unconstitutional because it drew content-based distinctions that are not necessary to achieve its objectives.

Notes:
The House of Worship Protection Act is also notable for the severity of its penalties. First and second violations are misdemeanors, but third violations or greater are felonies.

Link to Full Judgment:
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/03/133036P.pdf

This case summary is provided by the Child Rights International Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

English
Monitoring body: 
US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Scope: 
Date: 
Monday, March 9, 2015 - 15:45
Instruments: 

Countries

CRIN does not accredit or validate any of the organisations listed in our directory. The views and activities of the listed organisations do not necessarily reflect the views or activities of CRIN's coordination team.