Lost Liberties: Police Threaten Man Handing Tracts

Police threatened to arrest a Christian man for peacefully sharing his faith on public streets and sidewalks during an Italian festival last year. Now, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is striking back in federal court.

ADF attorneys on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Buffalo over the incident. Police ordered the man to leave the festival, which was free and open to the public, if he intended to continue handing out Christian literature.

As one officer told the man, “If you hand out one more tract, you’re going to jail.”

“People of faith shouldn’t be threatened with arrest for peacefully expressing their beliefs,” says ADF attorney Nate Kellum. “The Constitution and court precedent in these types of cases is clear: officials cannot toss someone out of a public event simply because they don’t like the views he’s expressing. This is a classic example of free speech that the First Amendment protects.” Read the rest here.

Read my article: “Handing Out Tracts: Scary, Yet Effective”

Comments (10)

Ryk
May 14, 2012
Well, I am not a lawyer, nor do I know all the details, but basef strictly on the 1st ammendment, I would say the cops were out of line.
Of course if the tract pusher, was harrasing people,.or xisrupting the festival and harming others free speech, that would be different
- Nameless Cynic
  May 14, 2012
  I’m with Ryk. Unfortunately, it wasn’t newsworthy enough to get the attention of anybody except the christian press, and they’re all working off the same script. You can see his complaint on line, but all you’re getting is one side of the story. I’m curious whether there aren’t a few mitigating circumstances being left out here.
  - Steve L.
    May 14, 2012
    
    … the Christian press only? Sure doesn’t look like the Christian press to me!
    Can I get you a towel for your egg??
  - Steve L.
    May 14, 2012
    
    Links to above:
    http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2012/05/christian-messages-banned-in-buffalo.html
    http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-926424.htm
    http://tppatriots.net/2012/05/14/christian-messages-banned-in-buffalo/
    http://patdollard.com/2012/05/war-on-god-christian-messages-banned-in-buffalony/
  - BathTub
    May 14, 2012
    
    Wait, your counter examples are 3 conservative Christians blogs and dating forum?
  - Ryk
    May 14, 2012
    
    Looks exactly like the Christian press to me some dudes blog, a Tea Party website, an excerpt from Wingnut Daily, and a thread from datehookup. Since two of those are not press and the other too are extremist websites closely tied to the religious rightI would say you have the egg on your face.
    However to be more clear he could ammend it to “Christian and Right Wing extremist press” The two do tend to be interchangeable.
  - perdita
    May 14, 2012
    
    Steve… they’re all referencing the same WND post.
  - theB1ackSwan
    May 14, 2012
    
    All of those have obvious Christian influences, Steve?
PIBuckley
May 17, 2012
I don’t think it’s the source that’s the point. I believe the point is the 1st Amendment. We may not agree with each other, but the Founding Fathers made this type of speech possible. We don’t live in a Communist country; we live in a free country. We have the right to pass out / discuss anything we want to in the public forum, assuming we’re not causing a ruckus in other ways (fights, violence, etc). I would also say it would be interesting to see both sides of the story, but I believe I have the right to pass out tracts, and you have the right to refuse said tract.
- Ryk
  May 17, 2012
  Oh I think everyone is agreeing that people have the right to pass out tracts or any other form of non violent/harrasing speech. The reason I would like to hear the story from a non biased news source or failing that even fox news, is so I could know whether or not this particular tract pusher was harrased for engaging in protected speech or if there are other circumstances involved. I do not think biased sources such as World Net Daily or Tea Party Patriots can be trusted to include details that conflict with their agenda.