Jason Cantrell spends five days a week outside of Atlanta-area abortion clinics, seeking to reach women considering the procedure through his evangelism.
There's been a wide array of responses to his presence, he said. Some don't support his efforts, though others have been receptive to his offers for prayer and a "blessing bag" with gifts, pregnancy resources and his contact information so he can organize a baby shower.
He's been doing all of this since 2016 and has received the required permits for sound amplification. But an incident over his amplified street preaching in the Atlanta suburb of Forest Park, Georgia, is landing him in court on a misdemeanor charge on Nov. 12.
He wascited in July under a clause in the city's noise permitthat says it becomes "'null and void' if any complaints are received about the noise level," according to the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative organizationfocused on religious libertyissues that's representing Cantrell.
The group is also involved in other litigation related to amplified speech, including lawsuits on behalf ofanti-abortion activists arrestedoutside of an Ohio clinic andstreet preachers arrested in Chicago.
USA TODAY reached out to the city of Forest Park, Georgia, for comment.
Permit clause has 'no safeguards,' expert says
Officers voided Cantrell's permit and issued the citation for noise amplification on July 31 after saying there'd been three requests for him to turn the volume down, according to the American Center for Law and Justice.
"In other words, the city has created a system in which anyone who dislikes a message can silence a speaker simply by complaining," the organization said. "That is not how the First Amendment works."
Cantrell said the clause "kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a permit."
Experts agreed, telling USA TODAY the law is on Cantrell's side as the case moves forward.
The permit provision definitely equates to a heckler's veto, according toClare Norins, a University of Georgia School of Law professor and director of its First Amendment Clinic.
Theterm refers to incidentsin which a speaker is shut down because of others' negative reactions to the content of their speech. It's been applied in landmarkU.S. Supreme Courtcases includingTerminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 case in which a Catholic priest's conviction for "breach of the peace" was overturned.
Emory University law professorAlexander Volokhsimilarly described the city's provision as a "violation of free speech rights."
"(There are) no safeguards against any private individual using the power that they have to shut people down in a way that's discriminatory," he said.
He said the city could establish a more narrowly tailored provision that prevents protected speech from being shut down.
Cantrell's case is not the first time First Amendment issues have emerged in Forest Park, a city of just under 20,000 people.
Norins said her organization challenged the city over what it described as its violations of the state's Open Meetings Act during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Though she said the city initially addressed concerns overa lack of "effective remote public access"to its meetings, Norins said there has been "backsliding" since then.
Despite the incident and legal case he's now at the center of, Cantrell has continued to show up to abortion clinics with the required permits. He said officers have been "inconsistent" when it comes to enforcing the complaint clause.
Cantrell said he hopes the city drops the charges, removes the clause from its noise permits and ultimately protects his and other anti-abortion advocates' ability to "use our freedom of speech to share the gospel of Jesus Christ and be a voice for the voiceless."
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her atbjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.Funders do not provide editorial input.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Street preacher cited for being too loud, in First Amendment case
0 Comments