A recent protest held at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota interrupted a church service which included chants saying “ICE out.” Demonstrators targeted the church due to the pastor, David Eastwood, being the director of the ICE office in St. Paul. Four people on the scene were arrested including two journalists, John Lemon and Georgia Fort. Backlash for the venue of choice sparked questions of constitutionality and whether the protest violated the church’s first amendment right.
Many people are citing the first amendment as a protection for the protest however there are caveats to this argument. First, a church is considered a private property. The first amendment is to protect freedom of speech, however it does not extend and give permission to infringe the rights of others. It also does not ensure the right to protest on a private property when the owner does not consent. The freedom of religion not only gives a right to belief but to gathering as well. Inside of a place of worship, worshippers and leaders have a right to conduct their service without being interrupted.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act makes it illegal to intentionally interfere with people exercising their freedom of religion through threats, force or interruption. This federal law also makes it illegal to intimidate or block the entrance of places of worship as well as reproductive health clinics.
This also raises a concern for the journalist on the scene: are journalists free from prosecution if they were simply documenting the event? The answer is no. If the journalists’ behavior rises from observing to participating. Even if it doesn’t, the freedom of press act does not give journalists a legal right to trespass on private property nor ignore a lawful police order, so regardless both John Lemon and Georgia Fort are subject to prosecution according to their actions as well as the demonstrators.
First amendment right also does not automatically mean that a protest can be held anywhere, anytime. There is a time, place, and manner doctrine in which a protest must be properly permitted and approved to protest. This refers to the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Ward.v. Rock Against Racism (1989) that protest regulation was not unconstitutional because it was content neutral and was for the better interest of the public. In conclusion, the government can regulate how the speech happens, just not the speech itself.
By Kailyn Philpot
