Meinecke v. Seattle (1st Amendment Restrictions)

Meinecke v Seattle is a 2024 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion involving ‪@matthewmeinecke‬ an evangelist, and the City of Seattle. The opinion comes after Matthew sued the City of Seattle for multiple arrests after he was asked to leave public spaces while reading aloud from his bible.

[@matthewmeinecke]

This is matthew, Thanks for bringing attention to this, ive been arrested 5 times in Wa state now. This needs to stop. This decsion was a huge victory moving forward.

[@shotgunhobo1776]

God bless you brother, keep fighting the good fight!

[@WhiskeyCrack]

Government violating peoples rights, no way!
End Qualified Immunity!
Make police responsible for their actions.

[@rdjpso]

Thank you, Steve....great content for those who have a belief in God and exercise their right to free speech....

[@brandexample1776]

Democracy; mob rule.
Constitutional Republic; the individual is protected from the mob.
This case drives the point home.

[@DesertJoshB]

What the hell is wrong Seattle PD…

[@brandexample1776]

Qualified immunity and indemnification

[@robertmcnearny9222]

Hate speech is still free speech. He has a right to be there.

[@BeyondPC]

Fighting words are protected FROM government infringement by the Bill of Rights. Mutual combat is a protected expression and allowed by the right to bear arms. Flying fists are the fruit from both trees. The government does not have authority nor jurisdiction to interpret or redefine the context of our social contract.

[@Night_Hawk_475]

Aren't "Time place and manner" restrictions for exactly this kind of thing though? A hypothetical extreme: if a town were holding their annual festival, with no particular controversial subject being discussed there, and someone came through with a loud speaker playing white noise just to disrupt the peace, then surely the town has the right to protect their festival from noise disturbances?
If someone comes to a festival to heckle those involved by shouting above everyone else (like in @3:32) then they are a public nuisance, regardless of the content of their speech. Surely I don't have a right to go down to live orchestra at a music festival on public property, take a few friends with me, and make it our mission to disrupt everyone's enjoyment of the music by shouting over the orchestra? The festival he was out was a specific event with a time and place, and an expectation of decorum for it's manner. I wouldn't call what he was doing "conversational" in tone.
I think the protest in the first half of the video is a clearer case, where there was less justification to try to force him to move away.

[@MP-ym8lg]

Sorry kind of dumb with this kind of stuff. I watched the appeals court after your video I am a little confused. Did he win?

[@aboveusonlysky2878]

I don't agree with Matthew's message but I agree with his right to voice it in a public place without threat to others. Good appeal decision.

[@richvan2128]

Sounds like Seattle police are useless.