Latest news with #religiousRights
Yahoo
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to consider reviving lawsuit restricting evangelizing in small Mississippi town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker. Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court. Lower courts found he couldn't file a civil-rights lawsuit because he'd been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn't open either, effectively denying him a day in court. The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren't about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like 'Jezebel,' 'nasty,' and 'drunkards" at people passing by. The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated 'protest zone," and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group's 'desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.' Olivier's attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
Associated Press
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Supreme Court to consider reviving lawsuit restricting evangelizing in small Mississippi town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker. Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court. Lower courts found he couldn't file a civil-rights lawsuit because he'd been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn't open either, effectively denying him a day in court. The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren't about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like 'Jezebel,' 'nasty,' and 'drunkards' at people passing by. The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated 'protest zone,' and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group's 'desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.' Olivier's attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum. 'Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,' said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. 'Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.' The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
Sky News
28-05-2025
- General
- Sky News
Convicting man over Koran burning would reintroduce blasphemy law, court told
Convicting a man for burning the Koran would be 'tantamount to reintroducing a blasphemy law', his defence team has told a court. Hamit Coskun appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after he allegedly shouted abusive slogans about Islam while burning the holy book outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge, London, on 13 February. The 50-year-old denies a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour and an alternative charge of using disorderly behaviour "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress". Katy Thorne, defending, said at his trial that the prosecution pursuing the case against Coskun was "seeking to introduce a law unknown to this land, namely blasphemy in relation to Islam". Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008, with Scotland following suit in 2021. Ms Thorne told the court that burning the Koran "cannot be a criminal offence". "To render such an act a criminal offence is tantamount to reintroducing a blasphemy law in relation to Islam, rendering the Koran a specially protected object in the UK, where a flag or another book would not be, and rendering trenchant or offensive criticism of Islam a criminal offence, is also akin to reinstating an offence of blasphemy," she said in her written argument. "People must be free to exercise their religious or non-religious beliefs and to manifest those beliefs in whatever non-violent way they choose, and any curtailing by the state of that freedom must be absolutely necessary in a democratic society." She said Coskun "did not exhort hate" to those following Islam, but protested "outside the Turkish Consulate, a political institution, which provided further evidence he was not seeking to persuade others to dislike Islam, but express his personal criticism of Turkey and its stance on Islam". Ms Thorne added: "His protest was specifically political and thus... requires the highest protection of freedom of speech." 'Threat to public order' However, prosecutor Philip McGhee said Coskun was not charged simply for burning the Koran, but for "disorderly conduct". He said prosecuting Coskun did not impact the ability of others to criticise religion. Mr McGhee said Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, had deliberately chosen the time and location of his protest, travelling from his home in the Midlands to the consulate to set alight the Koran at around 2pm. "His actions gave rise to a very clear threat to public order and went beyond a legitimate expression of protest, crossing the line to pose a threat to public order," Mr McGhee said. Coskun, an atheist, had said on social media he was demonstrating against the "Islamist government" of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who he said had "made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a sharia regime", prosecutors said. The defendant's legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union (FSU) and the National Secular Society (NSS). The FSU said it was defending Coskun "not because we're anti-Islam, but because we believe no one should be compelled to observe the blasphemy codes of any religion, whether Christian or Muslim". Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, added: "A successful prosecution in this case could represent the effective criminalisation of damaging a Koran in public, edging us dangerously close to a prohibition on blasphemy." The trial, which is expected to last a day, continues.
