foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers permits First Amendment retaliation and the heckler's veto and is brought To Us by victorious vegans Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve you should also note that the text that appears on the screen throughout this episode was present in the original video and was not added by this channel in a video posted on July 20th 2022 an officer from the Rockville Center Police Department approached two vegan protesters standing on a sidewalk outside of a restaurant in Rockville Center an incorporated Village in Long Island New York one of the protesters who was filming the demonstration captured the interaction on film that steak was a living individual who resisted I'll take a steak no I I didn't I called the town they said as long as I have the equipment on my body on my person I do not need a permit you can't sit up like this and you said it was I agree with you yeah of course I'm messing on over here because you do need a permit I'm telling you I I was given the Town Hall number and I called and they said I did not need a permit so I did not get a permit it was a woman I'm not sure her name so here's what I'm going to do I'm going to call my supervisor please I'm gonna run it by him continue to tell me that you need a Perma to be here and then it's it's out around here too I literally called and they said I do not as so long as I have it on my there's a thing too like you know this is my vehicle this is a public yes it's public space we already spoke with the uh manager I believe it was and she said that we have the freedom of speech she listened 100 everybody come here with me if you want to get your support have your captain come come down here and make a phone call for us to speak with them I know from experience and how this works that you one thousand percent need a permit listen I'm not saying you're obstructing traffic I'm not saying any of that so what on the grounds of what would you I'm gonna follow up please okay all right we'll be here come back give you a better answer all right headquarters all right it's gonna be a little higher than me all right sure I don't know who you spoke with that Village Hall I would pull up and complain to them because they gave me the wrong information one thousand I would say 100 be a permit to demonstrate even if it's a two-person level right I understand that you have what if scenarios but we're dealing with yeah particular situation okay and what is wrong with this particular situation but you're saying why would I need a permit to demonstrate in the village of rockpool Center you need to have a permits now if you don't do that you can be issued a sea summons or criminal summons or for what or demonstrating about apartments I just explained that to you but I don't want to do it I don't want anybody to get in trouble the officer claims that the protesters need a permit to demonstrate in the village of Rockville Center and could be issued a so-called cease summons or a criminal summons if they refuse to leave a cease summons more commonly known as a desk appearance ticket or d-a-t or an appearance ticket is a written order issued by a police officer that initiates criminal proceedings against an individual and requires them to appear in court on a specific date and time however despite the officer's contentions to the contrary there is no requirement in Rockville Center's ordinances that a permit be obtained for two individuals to protest peacefully on a public sidewalk while section 247-18 requires that individuals obtain a permit to operate or conduct a block party or special event which section 247-17 defines as quote a pre-planned single entertainment event including but not limited to carnivals craft shows festivals and street fairs on any Village Street or other Village property which may obstruct delay or interfere with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or use of the street or Village property there is no similar requirement for a small protest that does not obstruct traffic however even if the ordinance did require the protesters to obtain a permit such a law would likely be unconstitutional in general the first amendment allows individuals in small groups to protest in public places like streets sidewalks and Parks as as long as they do not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic as the Supreme Court summarized in the 1983 case of Perry Education Association versus Perry Local Educators Association quote in places which by long tradition or by government Fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed the court went on to explain that in so-called quintessential public forums such as streets and parks which quote have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and time out of mind have been used for purposes of assembly communicating thoughts between citizens And discussing public questions the government may not prohibit all communicative activity further a state can only enforce content-based exclusions in traditional public forums like sidewalks if the regulation quote is necessary to serve a compelling State interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end and can only impose content neutral regulations on the time place and manner of expression that are quote narrowly tailored to serve a significant picking government interest and leave open ample alternative channels of communication likewise in the 1969 case of Shuttlesworth versus Birmingham the Supreme Court held it quote a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license without narrow objective and definite standards to guide the licensing Authority is unconstitutional in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that quote an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms and that quote even when the use of its public streets and sidewalks is involved a municipality may not Empower its licensing officials to Rome essentially at will dispensing or withholding permission to speak assemble picket or parade according to their own opinions regarding the potential effect of the activity in question on the well welfare decency or morals of the community here a court would almost certainly conclude that a restriction on small peaceful demonstrations on a public sidewalk without a permit was unconstitutional under the Precedence we have discussed as well as the many other cases that uphold the rights of individuals to exercise free expression in traditional public forums I don't want you to come here there's no captains number one all right number two we have more serious matter going on right now in the village what's happening that's not your business well yeah then I guess you should carry out that that's the scenario you have to pack it up and you know fall Village oh as for a paramed go through the motions doing that but they said that I didn't need one so that's why we're here what is is what I'm telling you they give you the incorrect information all right you should try it well I pulled that out for you okay no problem hello okay I understand what you're doing all right this may not be the best in front of somebody's business we already spoke with them who's that like I don't understand what the issue is no matter how they feel about it they need to be spoken up for and we're not doing anything wrong right because did you get a code for what we're actually yeah okay you're going to write the tickets we need to write I only deal with laws what you're speaking about yep and not any of my concerns I have no opinion on the map zero because I can't I'm not supposed to I don't say what laws are in existence is I have no problem well that's you guys need to provide that because that's what we're asking for did you explain to him that I called town hall and they specifically told me get a permit they specifically did you not explain to him the situation sure I've encountered this before on private property and I was told by the supervisor to call Village Hall which I did and I explained the situation and they specifically told me that no permit was needed I would like the code that we're breaking because we wish you whatever we need to issue what do you mean what do you think this is maybe provocative Maybe to know if this would be done better somewhere else where specifically do you suggest we have people complaining and you're allowed to have a different opinion than that if we go to a different corner I am not we're going to have the same issue then because if I go from here to over there the code would still be the same no no it changed because we're in different places it seems like it's being made up then amen the officers continue to inform the protesters that they cannot protest in that specific location without a permit but when the protesters request that the officers advise them of the section of the code they are violating the officers cannot direct them to an applicable ordinance instead they attempt to argue that the location the protesters chose is not appropriate for their message demonstrating that the real issue is the content of the protester's speech despite the officer's repeated claims that it is not in general the First Amendment prohibits government officials such as police officers from retaliating against an individual for their protected speech as the Supreme Court explained in the 2006 case of Hartman versus Moore quote official reprisal for protected speech offends the Constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions including criminal prosecutions for speaking out the second Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over New York outlined the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the 2013 case of Dorset versus County of Nassau stating that quote a plaintiff must show one he has a right protected by the First Amendment two the defendant's actions were motivated or substantially caused by his exercise of that right and three the defendant's actions caused him some injury in defining exactly what constituted an injury the court clarified that a plaintiff must quote show either that his speech has been adversely affected by the government retaliation or that he has suffered some other concrete harm as the United States district court in Connecticut summarized in the 2020 case of Morgan vs simple quote the second circuit is previously held that verbal threat threats and harassment by themselves do not constitute a cognizable claim under section 1983 no matter how inappropriate or unprofessional unless the harassment is accompanied by actual injury nonetheless in the 2016 case of Jefferson versus Koenig the United States district court for the eastern district of New York held that an individual had stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against an officer who threatened to arrest him for panhandling because quote threats of arrest were being told to Move Along by the police violate plaintiff's rights and constitute actual injury here the protesters would almost certainly be able to pursue a First Amendment retaliation claim against the Rockville Center officers had they obeyed their orders to leave because this would be evidence that the officer's actions actually chilled the protester speech similarly a court would likely also recognize a First Amendment retaliation claim against the officers for their multiple threats of issuing a criminal summons against the protesters if they refused to leave since courts have recognized the threat of arrest or criminal prosecution as a constitutional injury however it is important to note that if the officers had merely verbally harassed the protesters or insulted them without threatening arrest and the protesters had continued in their speech despite this a court in the second circuit would likely reject a First Amendment retaliation claim against the officers although courts in different jurisdictions could reach a different conclusion when we asked for a code I situation okay we don't deal with this every day okay yeah and I'm assuming you've been shut down in different places for different reasons right we have the freedom of speech it's in America 2022. I felony and people fought for the right and now we some people have the right some people don't and in America I do what is it honestly it's because people told me complain we're not breaking I'm not a theorists I'm not talking about the theory I'm not talking about what you're talking about I am a peacemaker between two parties all I'm asking is that you've never had anyone come up to you and say hey you guys mind moving along a little bit and giving us a little bit of an easier time I am not allowed to have a personal thing in the cause okay that's fine but you're you're dictating something that you're doing everything ask okay and I'm asking for a code that we're breaking and I have not been provided that no problem so then that's what you want you want us to break yeah because no I'm asking for the code you okay I'll do what I got to do okay and we'll figure it out okay because I was just talking about it's not helping the situation right we have the right to protest right we've all done everything we have the rights that's what we're doing right now okay don't worry about it are we gonna get a code number we're gonna figure it out when the protesters continue to ask that the officers advise them of the code they are violating the officers ignore their requests and instead repeatedly claim that they are attempting to make peace between the protesters and the individuals who complained about their speech although there is certainly Merit to the idea that one of a police officer's duties is to preserve peace within the communities they serve First Amendment precedent makes it abundantly clear that peacemaking cannot come at the cost of any individual's freedom of speech for this reason courts have long recognized that controversial speech cannot be censored in order to appease the complaints or concerns of other members of the community the Supreme Court which refers to this problem as the heckler's veto has addressed this issue on multiple occasions and while recognizing that speech is not protected by the First Amendment and therefore can be censored If it creates a clear and present danger of Riot disorder or another immediate threat to Public Safety as the court explained in the 1949 case of term in yellow versus Chicago quote a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are or even stirs people to anger likewise the court concluded in the 2011 case of Snyder versus Phelps that the First Amendment even protected the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest its soldiers funerals declaring that quote speech is powerful it can stir people to action move them to tears of both Joy and sorrow and as it did here inflict great pain on the facts before us we cannot react to that Pain by punishing the speaker as a nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate in this situation a court would very likely determine that the officers could not censor the protester's speech even out of consideration for the members of the community who had complained about its content okay we can't relax you're allowed to be here I'm allowed to be here you're allowed to be here not be NP possession traffic we know that yeah as long as you're not bothering people we're gonna leave it as well okay if you can lower the brightness on the screen an inch not even as a human to another humor you're not required to do that okay I'm glad that you guys came to this conclusion that we're not doing anything wrong you had said that we were broken we broke a code and that we needed a permit that's what you said after finally admitting to the protesters that they are entitled to demonstrate where they are standing and warning them about actions that could render their conduct illegal such as interfering with pedestrian traffic the officers leave and allow the protesters to continue with their demonstration it is unknown whether the protesters have filed a complaint or intend to pursue legal action against the officers overall the Rockville Center officers get a c minus for misleading the protesters about the permit requirement on multiple occasions repeatedly threatening to Institute criminal proceedings against the protesters in an attempt to coerce them into leaving and attempting to silence the protester's speech because other members of the community did not approve of it although the officers maintained a professional demeanor throughout the encounter in some ways this made the situation even worse as it contributed to the illusion that they were simply attempting to enforce a valid permit requirement in the course of their ordinary duties this interaction illustrates how officers can abuse their Authority without using excessive force or even raising their voices and I would encourage these officers to familiarize themselves with the rights granted to all citizens by the First Amendment the protesters get an A plus for doing research ahead of time to ensure they were complying with the law understanding and exercising their first amendment rights and challenging the officers assertions that a permit was required by requesting that the officers identify the code they were violating this encounter is an excellent example of how individuals can challenge police overreach in a respectful but assertive Manner and I commend the protesters for their commitment to their cause and their first amendment rights our country was founded on the notion of free discourse among citizens and I sincerely appreciate that the protesters were willing to fight for this ideal in the face of government officials attempting to stifle it be sure to check out Victorious vegan's channel in the description below and let them know that ATA sent you let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music]