The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled today that anti-homosexual protesters during Gay Pride and OutFest parades in Philadelphia, may "demonstrate, but not disrupt" these events. Here's the story from the Philadelphia Inquirer . This decision arose from the 2004 arrest of members of "Repent America" by the Philly police during the OutFest.
I agree with the court's ruling. Sure, I want anti-gay protesters at a Gay Pride parade as much as I want to go on a date with Richard Hatch, but they do have a right to be there. They have their right to exercise free speech as much as we do, even if we don't like the message. However, note Judge Sloviter's majority opinion in which she states, "The right of free speech does not encompass the right to cause disruption, and that is particularly true when those claiming protection of the First Amendment cause actual disruption of an event covered by a permit."
This decision balances the interests of both parties. But, this leaves a few questions. What is considered to be "disruption"? I'm sure each party would argue the definition. Given the ambiguous nature of the argument, this is the only fair result. I wonder how this decision will impact future public gay events whether locally, regionally, or nationwide. Clearly, since this is a 3rd Circuit decision, will Repent America appeal it to the Supreme Court (if the Court decides to hear it)? Will they tone down their demonstrations? Will Pride events in other cities have different strategies when dealing with anti-gay protesters? Will other lawsuits be filed in different jurisdictions?
All this legal talk is making my brain hurt....
