
You've likely seen them outside sporting events, concerts, or on college campuses: Armed with signs covered in scripture and loudspeakers to deliver the good word, street preachers hope to convert the unwashed masses one megaphone message at a time.
But how far should these (often intentionally) inflammatory messengers be allowed to go? One Mississippi evangelist found out. After calling some passerby slurs, he was barred by local ordinances from demonstrating outside a local amphitheater, isolated to a designated protest zone away from event attendees.
He sued, and now the Supreme Court just agreed to hear his case. Should street preachers have the right to offend in the name of Jesus?
Banned in Brandon
Many of the 25,000 residents of Brandon, Mississippi are familiar with Gabriel Olivier, a well-known evangelist and street preacher in the area. For years, he has spread his message through a megaphone outside packed events at the 8,400-seat Brandon Amphitheater.
But the city of Brandon was seemingly not fond of Olivier’s message, which was incendiary even by street preacher standards.
Through his megaphone, Olivier was known to call passersby any number of slurs, including “whores,” “sissies,” and “Jezebels.” After a 2019 incident where he used such language, the city of Brandon passed an ordinance isolating Olivier to a designated protest area further away from the amphitheater, as well as implementing restrictions on the loudness of megaphones and the size of signs.
Though this ordinance applied to all demonstrators regardless of their message, Olivier says that quarantining him to a specific protest zone was a blatant attempt to squash his religious freedom in particular, and that it “forbids him” from spreading the gospel – an essential part of his faith.
Which begs the question: by intervening, was the city isolating a public nuisance… or stomping on his First Amendment rights?
Evangelism or Harassment?
In 2021, a frustrated Olivier tried to return to his initial protest area – only to be met by police, who arrested him for violating the city ordinance. He paid the fine, then sued, alleging the city violated his First Amendment right to free speech and practice of religion.
A district court rejected his claim, citing an old Supreme Court case, Heck v. Humphrey, as precedent. Olivier’s lawyers argue the courts improperly applied the old case, and say he has every right to spread his religious message within eye and earshot of every event goer outside of Brandon Amphitheater… no matter how inflammatory it is. This fall, the Supreme Court will decide whether the city acted improperly.
Is Street Preaching Effective?
Olivier claims that spreading the gospel is an intrinsic part of his religious beliefs, and that preventing him from doing so to a large audience is a legal affront to his First Amendment rights.
But others say he’s intentionally incendiary, and that he isn’t spreading the gospel, he’s just harassing innocent people trying to attend a concert or sporting event. They say that the name-calling is proof enough that Olivier is more interested in provoking a reaction than anything else.
In addition to large events, Gabriel has reportedly also preached outside women's health clinics in the past, leading to complaints by pro-choice groups:
It's been a criticism of other well-known street preachers – that they're in the business of generating attention and getting a rise out of people (as opposed to sincerely spreading the good word of Jesus).
A campus preacher known as "Sister Cindy" has made a name for herself with lewd sermons that attract the attention of college students:
But regardless of its effectiveness, should this kind of speech be limited by the state? Where do you stand?
9 comments
-
You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Incendiary speech is no less dangerous. The city acted appropriately.
-
No religious exemptions, period.
-
Preaching in the streets is a big 👎 in this day and age do it in private otherwise you will upset the wrong person or another religious group.
-
Perhaps in England where they're willing to arrest a person for wrong think sure. Here in the states we've made it clear that government cant dominate its creator.
Imagine you or I telling our creator what he can or can't say where he wants to say it when he wants to say it.
-
-
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America: Amendment 1 : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Therefore, any banning of FREE speech is prohibited by the Constitution! I say that sometimes the truth hurts, but it's a free country last I heard!!!!! Speak on!!!!
-
In the USA, Free Speech is allowed under the First Amendment so I don’t see what the problem is. 🤷
🦁❤️
-
Tred carefully. Hopefully, we still have freedom of speech in this country. Originally, in colonial America, town centers were designed as spaces for public gatherings, making them ideal for delivering speeches that needed to reach a wide audience. Anyone could climb on a box and spout any nonsense. This speech is supposed to still be protected, including preachers.
-
Sounds like he was treated fairly. He obviously likes to be a spectacle seeking attention. His religious beliefs do not give him the right to disturb the peace or antagonize others. If he violated an ordinance, fine him and charge him all legal costs and double it each time he violates it. It's not the states job to insure he gains followers. He should be happy to have a designated area others would have to pay for.
A nuisance is a nuisance, regardless of their "spiritual" origins.