Woman Escorted Off Bus For Reading Bible Aloud

[Temporal Renegade]

Yet another case of 'Victimization'....

http://cbs11tv.com/local/woman.bible.get.2.620431.html

[Piscivore]

Nice objective newsreader too: "...for reading the bible to her children".

[Tanstaafl]

I haven't been able to watch the video clip with sound yet (I'm at work :(), is it clear whether she was just reading to her kids, or reading loudly to try to convert anyone near her?

[Piscivore]

...is it clear whether she was just reading to her kids, or reading loudly to try to convert anyone near her?

Not from what I saw. She did appear very self-righteous and stubborn, like perhaps she enjoyed being "persecuted".

[Furi]

After hearing her read, I would have told her to STFU as well.

Buses here also discriminate against mobile telephone conversations whether they be to Allah or whoever, she also broke the golden rule NEVER argue with the driver (maybe she is used to shorter buses with the more tolerant drivers)

[Moon-Spinner]

At first blush, I thought "What's so bad about reading to her kids, even if it is the Bible", but after watching the clip, she comes off as belligerent, as though she was looking for a fight. She has that "I'm going to read the Bible out loud anywhere I Damn well please!!" kind of attitude.

[The Grave]

What an utter bunch of fruit cakes; here's a portion:-

Fundamental beliefs...

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.


8. Great Controversy:
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)

To join in on the nutters go to:-

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html


Further comments later I haven't got time now!

[Lothian]

"Anyone who is loud will be asked to be quiet," said representative Joan Hunter. "That is a standard policy across country in the transit industry."

It doesn't matter what is said, the T has a policy of no loud or abusive behavior.

"It's only if the other passengers will complain, or it's obviously so loud it's distracting the operator, that we will ask them to stop," Hunter explained.I guess she would have complained if someone had loudly told her kids what a screwball their mother was.

[Furi]

I'm about to go out for a New Year beerage, I shall be wearing my excessively bulky coat (mmm goose down lully), and generally looking shifty and I have a serious beard, maybe I should see what reading parts of the Qu'ran out loud in public places gets me.

Happy More Beer Peoples.

[Piscivore]

Further comments later I haven't got time now!

Don't put yourself out on our behalf.

[KingMerv00]

If we let her read aloud and I laughed mightily at the funny parts, would she want ME off the bus?

[BenBurch]

Perfectly appropriate.

She should also have been citied for creating a public nuisance.

[wyndl]

Perfectly appropriate.

She should also have been citied for creating a public nuisance.


AMEN to that! ;)

[bokonon]

That might be funny, if someone whipped out a cell phone to take a call from the guy in the sky himself, and they had an impromptu contest to see who could be the loudest and most obnoxious. I'd try it myself, but the few times I've actually taken the bus, it was always because there was someplace I needed to be. Getting put off halfway there just to make a point would be inconvenient, but as the saying goes, there's always another one in 20 minutes.

[Elentar]

From what I saw of the clip of her reading, and her demeanor, she was probably reading very loudly to be heard by her children over the noise of the bus, and then got even louder after the first warning. She was looking for a reason to claim persecution. She appears to be the pig-headed self-righteous type.

[Temporal Renegade]

If we let her read aloud and I laughed mightily at the funny parts, would she want ME off the bus?

Probably, because she'll probably see it as you're not laughing at her, you're laughing at GOD.

[Temporal Renegade]

That might be funny, if someone whipped out a cell phone to take a call from the guy in the sky himself, and they had an impromptu contest to see who could be the loudest and most obnoxious. I'd try it myself, but the few times I've actually taken the bus, it was always because there was someplace I needed to be. Getting put off halfway there just to make a point would be inconvenient, but as the saying goes, there's always another one in 20 minutes.

Especially if he were a Hispanic gentleman named Jesus...

[JoeEllison]

Hey, here's an example of the same sort of person who probably says "Merry Christmas" like an insult and an attack.

That woman is scum, and she deserved what she got.

[joobz]

According to her, The Bus driver asked her to please refrain from teaching until the proper time and place. Her self-congradulatory response was, (to paraphrase), "It's the sabbath, so now is the right time and place."

Makes you wonder why she was on the bus to begin with if teaching her children were so important.

Being a former commuter (regional rail), ANY loud conversation is extremely irritating and rude to other passengers. She's simply under the delusion that the subject of her lecturing protected her from being a rude idiot.

[kmortis]

Hey, here's an example of the same sort of person who probably says "Merry Christmas" like an insult and an attack.

That woman is scum, and she deserved what she got.

She's scum because she was being an idiot? :rolleyes:

[grayman]

Has Bill O'Reilly had her on his show yet?

[JoeEllison]

She's scum because she was being an idiot? :rolleyes:

Awww... did I hurt your wittle feelings?

She's scum because she was being intentionally rude in public, to a semi-captive audience.

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh yes, Xians going out, breaking rules and then crying "persecution." Martyr syndrome is all-too-common among these cultists.

[JoeEllison]

Ahh yes, Xians going out, breaking rules and then crying "persecution." Martyr syndrome is all-too-common among these cultists.

But, we are supposed to pretend that they are good people.:confused:

[joobz]

But, we are supposed to pretend that they are good people.:confused:
No more so than pretending that they are all represented by her.
Watching the interview, she definitely seemed to be an attention whore. The main difference between her and the Flava-of-Love girls is that she does her attention-whoring for the lord.

[Silentknight]

Hey, if it's okay for her to do that, then she should have no problem if I were to start reciting Psalm 137 in its entirety, or Deuteronomy 13:13-19. What about the Song of Solomon? Would she want her kids listening to that kind of smut? :D

[articulett]

Aack... poor kids... how embarrassing to have a nutter for a mother...

I hope someone gets to them before they're as meme infected as their ma.

[JoeEllison]

No more so than pretending that they are all represented by her.
Watching the interview, she definitely seemed to be an attention whore. The main difference between her and the Flava-of-Love girls is that she does her attention-whoring for the lord.
Which means that you don't disagree with me a single bit, as much as you'd like to pick a fight by feeling superior to me by your own definition of "they".

[Elind]

Yet another case of 'Victimization'....

http://cbs11tv.com/local/woman.bible.get.2.620431.html

Care to tell me how this differs from an jerk simply talking loudly, repetitively, on the phone or to children, in a public place where others may be bothered?

People who think they live in a bubble that deserves automatic respect even when they know damned well that their bubble may burst someone else's silent one deserve no respect.

[joobz]

Which means that you don't disagree with me a single bit, as much as you'd like to pick a fight by feeling superior to me by your own definition of "they".
what fight? By "they", I meant christians. Who else was I talking about?
BTW, I was agreeing with you.

[JoeEllison]

what fight? By "they", I meant christians. Who else was I talking about?
BTW, I was agreeing with you.
By "them", I meant "attention whores"... :confused:

[joobz]

By "them", I meant "attention whores"... :confused:we must be talking past each other. Sorry. :p

[thatguywhojuggles]

What an utter bunch of fruit cakes; here's a portion:-

Fundamental beliefs...

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.


8. Great Controversy:
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)

To join in on the nutters go to:-

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html


Further comments later I haven't got time now!

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/fundamental-banner.jpg

From the above quoted website... the girl in the image is about to be dunked in water... what is the guy in the upper right hand corner of the image so excited about photographing?? :D

[-Fran-]

Weird... since the bible she was so intent on reading LOUD from tells women to shut up in a quite a few places... :rolleyes:

[XBoxWarrior]

I watched the Vid......it was about some dude raping an old lady? then sitting on the railroad tracks?

Oh, wait......that's just the "news" streaming in Fort Worth......Damn

OK.....I got to the "Jerry Lumptin" part.......religion apologist.....:confused:

Recipes and tips for making delicious holiday fruitcakes
Fruitcakes get an awful lot of bad press, especially the mass produced varieties, but a rich homemade version can be incredibly delicious.

The South, with it's great love for baking cakes, has offered many fruitcakes through the years. In Mary Randolph's "The Virginia Housewife" (1824), there is a recipe for "A Rich Fruit Cake" with a pound cake batter and 9 pounds of assorted raisins, currants, almonds, and citron. "Mrs. Hill's New Cookbook" (1872) gives recipes for five, including a "Cheap Fruitcake," "Confederate Fruit Cake," and "Black Cake."

Generally, fruitcake is a mixture of fruits and nuts with just enough batter to hold them together. When wrapped in cloth and foil, saturated with alcoholic liquors regularly, and kept in in tightly closed tins, a fruitcake may be kept for months or even years.

Have It Your Way...

[amb]

At first blush, I thought "What's so bad about reading to her kids, even if it is the Bible", but after watching the clip, she comes off as belligerent, as though she was looking for a fight. She has that "I'm going to read the Bible out loud anywhere I Damn well please!!" kind of attitude.
Had I been the driver, I would wallop her with the bible first, then thrown her off. My policy of not hitting a woman would not influence me in the least.
That is not a woman but a propaganda machine. :D

[King of the Americas]

http://cbs11tv.com/local/woman.bible.get.2.620431.html

---

That's how the Drudge Report presented it, but the transportation company stated she was inviolation of their policy for reading 'ANYTHING' too loudly.

Personally, I think this is a case of Christian loud-mouthedness, and then an over-focus on the reading material.

If some lady was reading aloud "Cat in the Hat", while I was trying to read silently my paper, I'd have complained too, but that's just because I an an a**hole who hates kids.

Who wants to pay for a bus ticket, only to be preached to by a fellow traveler?

KoA, I merged your thread with an existing thread on the same subject.

THANKS, Lisa simpson. I didn't see this thread...

[kmortis]

Awww... did I hurt your wittle feelings?

She's scum because she was being intentionally rude in public, to a semi-captive audience.

Yes. I'm hurt to the core because you cast an ad hom at some nutter. Yup, you got me pegged.

No, she's an idiot for being intentionally rude in public. If she actually sues for discrimination, then I'll agree that she's scum.

[Tressa]

Too bad someone didn't start reading "The God Delusion", "God Is Not Great" or "The End Of Faith" out loud at the same time she was reading her "Bible."

"Oh, I'm sorry, what did you say Ma'am? My reading out loud is bothering you and interfering with you're educating your children on the Sabbath in public? Is that what you said? Well, I'm educating myself and your interruptions are interfering with my education and celebration of freedom of religion every day in this country."

[Piscivore]

Had I been the driver, I would wallop her with the bible first, then thrown her off. My policy of not hitting a woman would not influence me in the least.
That is not a woman but a propaganda machine. :D

And that sounds exactly like the kind of propaganda she was trying to create.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Here was a perfectly fine opportunity to explore the existence of god. If god existed, she should have struck that bus driver either mute or into a pillar of salt or some other equally histrionic condition for telling that righteous woman to "tone it down".

Every time there's a natural disaster and a church gets damaged, that is what gets air play on the local news. Are news organization basically stating "here's even more proof to the non-existence of a supernatural being for not protecting her house of worship"? Or perhaps they are implying "this type of church is obviously not one of the 'true' churches".

When I lived in Orlando, a man was shot dead by a stray bullet while driving. The news cast made sure we knew "he was on his way to church". Again, what is the relevance of that information if not to support a case for atheism?

Charlie (where the heck is god when you need her?) Monoxide

[Apathia]

I know of Valley Metro drivers who shut up loud talking, cell phone noise, and any audible music. It makes no difference what the book would be.

[BPSCG]

Being a former commuter (regional rail), ANY loud conversation is extremely irritating and rude to other passengers. She's simply under the delusion that the subject of her lecturing protected her from being a rude idiot.Used to ride the subway to work. The few weeks before Christmas, there was this little Korean guy who'd get on the metro train (this is 6:30 am, when most people haven't had their tranquilizing cup of coffee yet), and announce, almost apologetically, "Excuse me please..." and then start singing some Jesus loves you song.

I encountered him two, maybe three times over the years, but he was well-known.

Most of us would simply try to ignore him, keeping our faces firmly pressed into the pages of our Washington Posts. He'd finish up at the next stop, announce, again, rather apologetically, "Thank you..." and get off.

But one day, when he got on the train, and announced, "Excuse me please..." a middle-aged, annoyed-looking bureaucrat (anyone who's worked in DC has quickly learned to distinguish bureaucrats from beltway bandits contractors and tourists) looked up and said, loudly and firmly, "No! Not here!"

And the little Korean guy promptly shut up, apologized, and got off at the next stop. My office changed locations shortly after that and I started driving to work, so I don't know if he's still riding the rails and singing the gospel at Christmas or not.

But I was definitely grateful to the bureaucrat who told him to shut up. Now if they'd only do the same with the :talk034: tourists...

[Complexity]

Hallelulah!

I'm so glad she was forced off the bus.

Damned proselytizing annoying person who unfortunately has already bred.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When I was in Santiago this past week, Patricio and I were walking through the main square and stopped to listen to some nutjob preaching at the top of his lungs. I asked Patricio what he was saying, and he said it was the usual "If you don't pray you will all end up in hell, etc, etc".

For some reason, the two of us started laughing, and I guess we caught the eye of the nutjob, because Patricio said he stopped his yelling and said something like "This is nothing to laugh about, my friends".

It was fun.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If she actually sues for discrimination, then I'll agree that she's scum.

I didn't take the link because I saw the story on the local stations, so I don't know if that clip had a representative from Liberty Legal Institute commenting. From what I saw of him, a lawsuit is likely (and futile.

Too bad someone didn't start reading "The God Delusion", "God Is Not Great" or "The End Of Faith" out loud at the same time she was reading her "Bible."

Why should we stoop to her level? Isn't it enough to have the driver enforce policy?

[AgeGap]

Selfish *****. If the distracted bus driver has crashed and everyone was wiped out only her and the kids would have been saved and gone to heaven. She would have denied all the others a chance to be saved later in life. Amen.

[Ladewig]

Most of the callers to Houston radio call-in shows believe that the woman was targeted for her Christianity. I heard one host say the only thing that the driver said was you can't do that here. The host used this single quote as evidence that it was not a volume-based complaint, but a content-based complaint.

[BenBurch]

Weren't David Koresh and his whole little child-buggering family Seventh Day Adventists?

[thaiboxerken]

Most of the callers to Houston radio call-in shows believe that the woman was targeted for her Christianity.

I am not surprised, since it's a population of ignorant fools.

[ponderingturtle]

Weren't David Koresh and his whole little child-buggering family Seventh Day Adventists?

No Branch Davidians, but I have no idea if they are a splinter group of the Seventh Day Adventists, it is possible.

[Bob Klase]

No Branch Davidians, but I have no idea if they are a splinter group of the Seventh Day Adventists, it is possible.

They were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian

The Branch Davidians are a religious sect which originated from a schism in 1955 from the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, themselves former members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who were disfellowshipped during the 1930s

[Ladewig]

I am not surprised, since it's a population of ignorant fools.

I really wanted to present evidence against this claim, but then I remember what happened to former astronaut Walter Cunningham. Some time back, he was given a radio program which he called "Liftoff to Logic." He would talk about the importance of avoiding logical fallacies and also about current events in the field of science.

Each evening the program would start with him saying something like, "The New England Journal of Medicine just published an article about a breakthrough technology to help amputees. Let's talk about that for the first hour." Invariably, someone would then call in and say "the world is only 6000 years old." Cunningham, who held degrees in physics, geology, and space science, would carefully and patiently explain why the earth is over 4 billion years old. The caller would listen to the explanation and then say, "the world is only 6000 years old." Cunningham finally gave up and quit the radio.

[King of the Americas]

Look, part of me actually respects someone who believes so strongly in their personal faith, that they want to share it with the whole world. It really takes courage to stand up for what you believe in, and 'publically' speak out in the face of waves of naysayers.

I was capable of such things in my young idealistic youth, in an endeavor I penned "World Peace"...which now I regret and have no wish to speak of anymore...

That said, during this little endeavor, I realized that people don't give a rat's arse about what 'I' think or what big idea might help save them from the misery that is their lives. You could have the best idea/theory since Evolution, but that doesn't mean anyone wants to hear about it, from someone they didn't 'ask' about it...

Free Speech is a great idea, but I haven't found but a handfull of people who would actually listen to someone spouting notions 'at' them.

I too have ran into the 'street preachers', sat and watched them as people just strolled by trying their best to ignore every word they uttered. After a while I approached him, and relayed my feelings. I tried to tell him that you have to speak 'with people', and not 'at them', otherwise all of his work would be for not.

Guess what, he ignored me...which I think makes my point exactly.

He didn't 'ask' me for my opinion, so he wasn't going to receive it.

---

This woman MAY have thought she was helping all those other passangers, by reading aloud. Hell, I'd bet that was her plan when she set out that day, with her Bible in hand. But look at what she managed to accomplish, her kind is all up in arms - "They are attacking our religion AGAIN!" Whereas, people like 'us', are just more turned off and maybe even LESS likely to hear such things.

I can't help but to wonder if this is what she planned to happen, and if she was really reading "to her kid", or if she was indeed trying to read to the whole bus...

I mean, I am sure it is still okay to 'whisper' to a riding companion, isn't it? If she was 'quietly' reading from a book, to appease a child, I am sure no one would have minded... For some reason, I seriously doubt that is what she was doing.

[Furi]

What I am wondering, is if she was reading at the sprogs or to them, it is no good reading at them if you are trying to teach them, if she was talking to them and explaining what she was reading that would be teaching, if she was reading at the pace and volume that she was reading in her house (with the same sort of err well I wouldn't call it passion as there was little tonality it seemed in the voice, more like a disciplinary action), that is reading at them. and at everyone else.

I am suprised she got on a bus to go to her sabbath, surely doing so is forcing the poor driver to work and therefore not follow gods law. (I Hate Fanboy logic)

[-Fran-]

What I am wondering, is if she was reading at the sprogs or to them, it is no good reading at them if you are trying to teach them, if she was talking to them and explaining what she was reading that would be teaching, if she was reading at the pace and volume that she was reading in her house (with the same sort of err well I wouldn't call it passion as there was little tonality it seemed in the voice, more like a disciplinary action), that is reading at them. and at everyone else.

I am suprised she got on a bus to go to her sabbath, surely doing so is forcing the poor driver to work and therefore not follow gods law. (I Hate Fanboy logic)

Not to mention that obviously she hasn't got to the part yet where it says women should not teach, and stay quiet in public.

[King of the Americas]

What do you think would happen to a Muslim who started reading aloud from the Koran, during an airline flight?

[DrBaltar]

Most of the callers to Houston radio call-in shows believe that the woman was targeted for her Christianity. I heard one host say the only thing that the driver said was you can't do that here. The host used this single quote as evidence that it was not a volume-based complaint, but a content-based complaint.

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but Houston radio talk show hosts are certified bible thumpers.

[pchams]

Ahh yes, Xians going out, breaking rules and then crying "persecution." Martyr syndrome is all-too-common among these cultists.

It was so much easier when we could just feed them to the lions :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

I really wanted to present evidence against this claim, but then I remember what happened to former astronaut Walter Cunningham. Some time back, he was given a radio program which he called "Liftoff to Logic." He would talk about the importance of avoiding logical fallacies and also about current events in the field of science.

Each evening the program would start with him saying something like, "The New England Journal of Medicine just published an article about a breakthrough technology to help amputees. Let's talk about that for the first hour." Invariably, someone would then call in and say "the world is only 6000 years old." Cunningham, who held degrees in physics, geology, and space science, would carefully and patiently explain why the earth is over 4 billion years old. The caller would listen to the explanation and then say, "the world is only 6000 years old." Cunningham finally gave up and quit the radio.

I made a comment about how Phil Plait treated creduloids when he appeaed on Coast to Coast AM the other night. Did you happen to read my comments?

What do you think would happen to a Muslim who started reading aloud from the Koran, during an airline flight?

You live here. Forget and airplane, what to you think would happen to them if they started reading it like that on the TRL, DART or the T?

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but Houston radio talk show hosts are certified bible thumpers.

Evidence? I was a little to pressed for time last night to check out who was on Houston Conservative talk radio, but I know there's a state rep who is a whacky religious righter. Talk radio isn't monolithic though so I'd prefer to let Ladewig clarify which shows he was listening to.

I'll try and check KDFW's "tell it to tim" Vox populi segment tomorrow morning and the DMN letters to the editor page as well as the Conservative talk shows here in Dallas tonight.

[King of the Americas]

Yo Sinner,

Did you just say talk radio isn't monolithic?

I listen to 570, 820, and 1080, when I am in the car, and EVERY host of EVERY station is stanchly conservative and 'christian leaning'...

What station or host isn't as I have described? To my knowledge there is no "Air America" around here.

[Spindrift]

Reading the Bible to her child on a bus.

Isn't that child abuse?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yo Sinner,

Did you just say talk radio isn't monolithic?

I listen to 570, 820, and 1080, when I am in the car, and EVERY host of EVERY station is stanchly conservative and 'christian leaning'...

What station or host isn't as I have described? To my knowledge there is no "Air America" around here.

Point taken.. and (wait, you don't listen to 660... umm) and conceded. :)

I listen to a lot of ESPN, KERA and testoserone radio on 105.3 so sometimes I forget that all of the "talk" formats here are Conservitarian to Conservicrazy.

[King of the Americas]

660...? I haven't hit that one yet, but I'll program it in.

I do listen to 101.1 & 90.1, but they are FM stations and I don't consider them "all talk radio".

105.3...? Is that ESPN, or something else?

That isn't one of my programed stations either.

88.1, 89.1, 90.1, 92.5, 92.7, 92.9, 100.3, 102.1, 102.9, 103.7, and I forget what's at the end of my FM channels.

I usually just stick to talk radio, or listen one of my Frank Sinatra CD's.

[thaiboxerken]

She's taking legal action. If you watch the clip again, there is another one afterwards where she is interviewed along with her lawyer.

[Beerina]

We'll assume she wasn't loudly preaching to the other passengers, and that it wasn't so loud it was distracting the driver.

That leaves "other passengers complaining". In which case, I do believe the First Ammendment does indeed prevent the government from silencing people in public places because the content of the message irritates other people, religious or not.

Sue to decimation, with my athiestic blessings.


ETA: Now that I think about it, unless she was so loud as to be hurting the eardrums of other passengers, even preaching loudly (as long as following the rules of where to sit or stand), which is to say, deliberately to other passengers, would be perfectly fine, in the sense that the government has no business silencing people in public places.

[thaiboxerken]

ETA: Now that I think about it, unless she was so loud as to be hurting the eardrums of other passengers, even preaching loudly (as long as following the rules of where to sit or stand), which is to say, deliberately to other passengers, would be perfectly fine, in the sense that the government has no business silencing people in public places.

Really?! I don't think that's quite true. Is a court room a public place? How about a library?

[bluess]

Was 'the Government' silencing her? Or the bus company?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Was 'the Government' silencing her? Or the bus company?

The T is a government entity (Fort Worth Transit Authority).

[UnrepentantSinner]

660...? I haven't hit that one yet, but I'll program it in.

I do listen to 101.1 & 90.1, but they are FM stations and I don't consider them "all talk radio".

105.3...? Is that ESPN, or something else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radio_stations_in_Dallas-Fort_Worth
660 is KSKY
105.3 is KLLI
ESPN is 103.3 KESN

As far as music stations go we have a lot of similar choices.

[NobbyNobbs]

Practically every public transportation system has rules about loudness. The lady says it wasn't about loudness, but she also says she was towards the back of the bus.

She says the previous bus was standing room only, and that the current bus was on the way to the mall on a Sunday. We can assume there was a fair crowd on that bus as well.

Even if it was empty but for her, it's gotta be plenty loud to be heard from the back to the front.

[Beerina]

Really?! I don't think that's quite true. Is a court room a public place? How about a library?

Not in that sense, no, not if talking in general is not allowed.

[modecom]

That woman is scum, and she deserved what she got.


I agree, she was a real nutjob, unlike this guy who I would love to share a bus with.

Clive The Slightly-Too-Loud Commuter Video 1
UzcEeimHIe0

Clive The Slightly-Too-Loud Commuter Video 2
RyUbRK89zEE

[JoeEllison]

I've been on public transportation... generally, being any kind of pest that bugs the other passengers and/or driver can get you booted.

[thaiboxerken]

Not in that sense, no, not if talking in general is not allowed.

But being loud, in general, is ok even if there are clear rules about it posted? There is nothing unconstitutional about a public transport having rules against loud and obnoxious behavior.

Also, in a library, talking is aloud, just not loud talking that can disrupt or disturb the other patrons......kind of like the bus.

[Furi]

Also, in a library, talking is aloud, just not loud talking that can disrupt or disturb the other patrons......kind of like the bus.

It is indeed.

[Ladewig]

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but Houston radio talk show hosts are certified bible thumpers.
Evidence? I was a little to pressed for time last night to check out who was on Houston Conservative talk radio, but I know there's a state rep who is a whacky religious righter. Talk radio isn't monolithic though so I'd prefer to let Ladewig clarify which shows he was listening to.

I'm not sure which host I was listening to. Station management often moves them from time slot to time slot and the hosts frequently turn upon different stations.

The one who made the comments about the Bible/bus incident was a hard-core all-morality-comes-from-scriptures kind of guy.

I would say the majority of local AM radio hosts in Houston are strong religious types. There is one that I like who thought all the hoopla over 06/06/2006 was rather silly. Some of his listeners were exceptionally upset over his not buying into the nonsense. One listener went so far as to say he was taking time off work to pray in church all day. Radio hosts would not get very far in this market if they did not respect the Bible.

[Furi]

And that sounds exactly like the kind of propaganda she was trying to create.

Maybe a few selective Blasphemous statements at her behaviour might have been a more fun education for the kids.

"Holy Allah woman can you stop reading to your goddamned kids, it's not like it's the damned sabbath for christs sake"

[UnrepentantSinner]

I saw a brief story on a local channel today and it looks like the lawsuit is going to go foreward. Also on KDFW's "Tell It To Tim" segment, two calls supported her and one said she needed to STFU (culled from comments received on the issue).

I'm not sure which host I was listening to. Station management often moves them from time slot to time slot and the hosts frequently turn upon different stations.

The one who made the comments about the Bible/bus incident was a hard-core all-morality-comes-from-scriptures kind of guy.

I would say the majority of local AM radio hosts in Houston are strong religious types. There is one that I like who thought all the hoopla over 06/06/2006 was rather silly. Some of his listeners were exceptionally upset over his not buying into the nonsense. One listener went so far as to say he was taking time off work to pray in church all day. Radio hosts would not get very far in this market if they did not respect the Bible.

I was wondering if it's that crazy politician who has a radio show and I couldn't remember his name.

(And no, I'm not referring to Ron Paul, this guys a different sort of crazy ;))

[Kopji]

She has the liberty legal gang involved on the air with her.

Ok, what they want is for the city to send out a letter to all the drivers explaining that they can't prevent people from reading the Bible out loud, but they could ask that the person read it more quietly.

http://www.libertylegal.org/

I have to agree though, if it were about a Muslim reading from the Quran too loudly this would be quite a non story.

Maybe if religious fanatics were less scary looking this would not be as much of a problem.

[-Fran-]

Ok, what they want is for the city to send out a letter to all the drivers explaining that they can't prevent people from reading the Bible out loud, but they could ask that the person read it more quietly.


Isn't that already what the bus company's rules say though? :confused: I mean the issue has been the actual loudness all the time, hasn't it? Not the actual act of reading out loud (no matter what book it is) as I have understood the bus company's side of things?

I mean it would be the same as if someone had been shouting things very loud, got thrown off the bus for this after refusing to stop, and then wanted the busdrivers to be instructed that people are allowed to talk, but that they can tell them to tone it down if they talk too loud.

That it was the bible read from, and that the busdriver said it wasn't the time and place for it, only became an issue when it got loud enough for other people to not be able to escape an unwanted message in any way, save if they left the bus themselves. For that reason, a person reading any book in such a way, speaking very loud in such a way, or relating their latest sexual adventures, in detail, in such a way in a cell phone conversation, and so on... I don't think it's inappropriate that they be asked to tone it down in places such as a bus, or in the library, and similar places.

By the way, if the sex-talker is a member of a sexually oriented fertility cult discussing the copulation of their next ceremony - is it religious persecution to ask her to tone it down?

People out there have all sorts of weird beliefs and convictions that are important to them, that's fine, but I think it should be kept reasonable private. To me, religious belief is a private thing. There's a lot of things I don't want to know about the people I am forced to share a small, momentarily inescapable space with (such as public transportation on the move) and their religious convictions is one of those things. Reading things out loud like that is disrespectful to other passengers, if for no other reason than that it's harder for other people to chose to get away from it.

ETA:

Maybe if religious fanatics were less scary looking this would not be as much of a problem.

:D

[articulett]

I think the bus driver was right... he's like the landlord... it's his job to keep the passengers from bugging each other. I was on a subway where some teen got on with a loud boom box... but I was too afraid to say anything (so was everyone else apparently)--and there was no driver in that section. I think I'd be chicken to tell the religious person to shut up (theists can be very irrational)... but I would be thankful for a bus driver to do so. It's similar to an usher asking someone to be quiet in a theatre, isn't it?

[-Fran-]

I think the bus driver was right... he's like the landlord... it's his job to keep the passengers from bugging each other. I was on a subway where some teen got on with a loud boom box... but I was too afraid to say anything (so was everyone else apparently)--and there was no driver in that section. I think I'd be chicken to tell the religious person to shut up (theists can be very irrational)... but I would be thankful for a bus driver to do so. It's similar to an usher asking someone to be quiet in a theatre, isn't it?

Yes, I really think it's as simple as that. If the kid who played his boom box very loud got told to turn it down, would anyone take him seriously if he claimed his right to listen to whatever music he likes has been violated? hardly.

[UnrepentantSinner]

She has the liberty legal gang involved on the air with her.

I think I mentioned them in an earlier post. Kelly Shackleford is such a douchbag...

Channel 4 aired some "blog" (aka message board) comments about this non-event and most of them sided with screechy preachy long skirt gal. Bandwidth is killing me this morning, and I can't find a easy direct link to the discussion, but here's the link to the KDFW "blog" page.
http://community.myfoxdfw.com/
It should be in there somewhere.

I'll ask this again...

Maybe a few selective Blasphemous statements at her behaviour might have been a more fun education for the kids.

"Holy Allah woman can you stop reading to your goddamned kids, it's not like it's the damned sabbath for christs sake"

...what purpose would be served by sinking down to her level?

Maybe if religious fanatics were less scary looking this would not be as much of a problem.

What exactly did you find scary about her? I found her uncut updo, glasses and long skirt to be eyerollingly annoying, but I didn't find her to be scary. I'd be a lot more concerned about some drunk football players, color wearing gang members, skinheads or a bearded middle-Easterner fervently reciting the Koran than a crazy woman with an annoying uncut updo, glasses and long skirt.

[qayak]

Yes, I really think it's as simple as that.

No, it is infinitely more complicated. It involves the bible and a religious freakazoid. This will drag on for years.

[Ladewig]

I was wondering if it's that crazy politician who has a radio show and I couldn't remember his name.

No, that guy is on usually in the afternoon and this was a morning drive-time person.

[-Fran-]

No, it is infinitely more complicated. It involves the bible and a religious freakazoid. This will drag on for years.

Ack... I fear that you are right. I wish it were as simple as that though :(

[amb]

As long as the fool leaves people alone and only bothers her poor deluded kids who in time may make their own minds up at the mothers gibberish, what harm can come of it?
Unless she whacks one of the kids with the ''good book'', then she should be charged with child abuse. Actually, she should be charged anyway, preaching to kiddies is child abuse. It's abuse of the child's in mature brain.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As long as the fool leaves people alone and only bothers her poor deluded kids who in time may make their own minds up at the mothers gibberish, what harm can come of it?

All that she was asked to do was leave other people alone - that is not subject them to her unwanted noise in a public place where they have a reasonable expectation not to be unreasonably disturbed.

Unfortunately what she wants is the right NOT to leave people alone.

[UnrepentantSinner]

As long as the fool leaves people alone and only bothers her poor deluded kids who in time may make their own minds up at the mothers gibberish, what harm can come of it?
Unless she whacks one of the kids with the ''good book'', then she should be charged with child abuse. Actually, she should be charged anyway, preaching to kiddies is child abuse. It's abuse of the child's in mature brain.

She wasn't tossed off for reading the Bible or even for reading it to her kids, but for being too loud.

[Nogbad]

I recall working with a lady on this side of the pond. She informed us that she conducted her girls in hymn singing on the bus as a form of witness. Sadly she was a lady living on the edge - the last I heard she had taken medical retirement due to ill health and that both girls were seriously off the rails.

I think such behaviour is not actually that usual in Xtian circles and perhaps says more about what was going on in the lady's head than any religious imperative. Certainly her girls broke free with a vengence at the first opportunity and not desperately sensibly either adding to her woes. I am not sure if the same circumstances prevail here but I see striking similarities.

[ceo_esq]

She wasn't tossed off for reading the Bible or even for reading it to her kids, but for being too loud.

Unfortunately, the available information is insufficient to be able to say for sure. It sometimes happens that someone is arrested or prosecuted for breaking a rule against loud, disorderly or similar behavior as a result of engaging in public preaching and the like, and it emerges at trial that in fact the religious content actually did have an effect on the enforcement of the rule in that instance. This tends to result in a finding of a constitutional violation. Invariably the government authority in question takes the same position that the transit authority has in this incident, that is, to insist that the person was neutrally punished solely for her conduct and not for the expressive content of her speech. Sometimes it's true; sometimes it's not.

I also note that one of the transit authority representatives indicated, perhaps imprudently, that the rule is really only enforced when people complain, which suggests that at least in practice the rule may be similar to one of the many rules against "annoying" public conduct that have fared so poorly in the federal courts.

[Ladewig]

Unfortunately, the available information is insufficient to be able to say for sure.

I agree.

On the other hand, I do think the woman's court case will be a rather uphill battle.

[Furi]

...what purpose would be served by sinking down to her level?


I would have told her sotto voice,

I thought it might be an education for the kids, to see how a religious moral high ground fundy of an apparantly forgiving god, Spits their dummy out and throws all of the toys out of the pram, as if she did throw a class A hissy fit, she would have to explain such a venomous spleen venting to them, this would allow them to remember the confusion between Intolerence and Hatred and supposed infinite and eternal love and forgiveness, and may help them make their own minds up.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I also note that one of the transit authority representatives indicated, perhaps imprudently, that the rule is really only enforced when people complain, which suggests that at least in practice the rule may be similar to one of the many rules against "annoying" public conduct that have fared so poorly in the federal courts.

What better way is there for the transit authority to judge whether the public are annoyed than whether or not the public complain that they are annoyed?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Unfortunately, the available information is insufficient to be able to say for sure.

This is true. Currently we have an official statement by the T (I guess, from things I've seen in the local media), her complaint to local media and the Liberty Legal version of what happened. I hate to see stupid legal action like this go to court, but it will be interesting to finally hear the "Zapruder film" versions of how the entire incident went down.

I also note that one of the transit authority representatives indicated, perhaps imprudently, that the rule is really only enforced when people complain, which suggests that at least in practice the rule may be similar to one of the many rules against "annoying" public conduct that have fared so poorly in the federal courts.

The "caprice" argument aside, as I said, I want to hear directly from the bus driver because given the demographics of Fort Worth and the subset demographics of T bus drivers I'm inclined to think that the individual in question was a practicing Christian and thus didn't make a capricious decision to apply the rules, but was ejecting a passenger for sincere complaints by other sincere passengers.

Remember this lawsuit isn't based on caprice per se, but on an exercise clause basis of religious discrimination.

(and just to note, I hate arguing law with lawyers. I feel so outgunned :p)

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would have told her sotto voice,

I thought it might be an education for the kids, to see how a religious moral high ground fundy of an apparantly forgiving god, Spits their dummy out and throws all of the toys out of the pram, as if she did throw a class A hissy fit, she would have to explain such a venomous spleen venting to them, this would allow them to remember the confusion between Intolerence and Hatred and supposed infinite and eternal love and forgiveness, and may help them make their own minds up.

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you would have whispered Dawkin's or Sam Harris into her ear or you would have berated her for being stupid and woo instead of for her actual transgression of being polite to fellow passengers?

How does one sotto voce, "you're a child abuser by reading them that crap"?

[joobz]

Unfortunately, the available information is insufficient to be able to say for sure. It sometimes happens that someone is arrested or prosecuted for breaking a rule against loud, disorderly or similar behavior as a result of engaging in public preaching and the like, and it emerges at trial that in fact the religious content actually did have an effect on the enforcement of the rule in that instance. This tends to result in a finding of a constitutional violation. Invariably the government authority in question takes the same position that the transit authority has in this incident, that is, to insist that the person was neutrally punished solely for her conduct and not for the expressive content of her speech. Sometimes it's true; sometimes it's not.
so content can matter?
Let's the woman was teaching their children that it is proper for a man to beat her wife if she disobeys?

What if she was to teach that same thing but added, because the Quran says so?

In both cases, the content is likely to be a primary motivator for people being annoyed at the talk. It would be almost impossible to say that the content didn't matter. Yet, by your qaulifier, the second would be protected but not the first?

[ceo_esq]

What better way is there for the transit authority to judge whether the public are annoyed than whether or not the public complain that they are annoyed?

The problem is that if the transit authority does not enforce the rule when a person is talking loudly but no one professes annoyance, and does enforce it when a person is is speaking at a similar volume but someone does profess annoyance, that suggests that the rule is (de facto, at least) a ban on speech that annoys a passenger who hears it, rather than simply speech above a certain volume. Restrictions on expressive conduct where subjective annoyance is the touchstone of enforcement generally run risks in constitutional review. Annoying expressive conduct (that is, the kind that provokes complaints), it's often said, needs First Amendment protection more than innocuous expressive conduct (the kind no one complains about).

[JoeEllison]

The problem is that if the transit authority does not enforce the rule when a person is talking loudly but no one professes annoyance, and does enforce it when a person is is speaking at a similar volume but someone does profess annoyance, that suggests that the rule is (de facto, at least) a ban on speech that annoys a passenger who hears it, rather than simply speech above a certain volume. Restrictions on expressive conduct where subjective annoyance is the touchstone of enforcement generally run risks in constitutional review. Annoying expressive conduct (that is, the kind that provokes complaints), it's often said, needs First Amendment protection more than innocuous expressive conduct (the kind no one complains about).
I don't think First Amendment protection applies to out-loud speech on public transportation. No one's rights are being violated by being told to zip it on a bus or train.

[Beerina]

I don't think First Amendment protection applies to out-loud speech on public transportation. No one's rights are being violated by being told to zip it on a bus or train.

Assuming it is purely an issue of loudness (and I'd leave it to the lawyers as to whether the bus must have posted rules about this) I'd agree with you.

But if she was within "normal talking volume" (whatever that is), I would say it should be wrong for the government to censor certain types of speech. It's specifically forbidden from censoring any speech, much less selecting certain types, with the criteria being "it's irritating to others" (which would just breed a fraudulent grievance industry centered around censoring opinions that get in the way of those who seek or maintain power.)

In other words, irritation is not a sufficient criterion for censorship. Your feeling of irritation is free speech at work, doing its intended job.

[JoeEllison]

Assuming it is purely an issue of loudness (and I'd leave it to the lawyers as to whether the bus must have posted rules about this) I'd agree with you.

But if she was within "normal talking volume" (whatever that is), I would say it should be wrong for the government to censor certain types of speech. It's specifically forbidden from censoring any speech, much less selecting certain types, with the criteria being "it's irritating to others" (which would just breed a fraudulent grievance industry centered around censoring opinions that get in the way of those who seek or maintain power.)

In other words, irritation is not a sufficient criterion for censorship. Your feeling of irritation is free speech at work, doing its intended job.

Did you watch the video? And, have you ever been on a bus? I doubt this woman was being polite and quiet. Listen to that stupid creep of a woman. Now she's suing, for not being allowed to be a creep in public.

[-Fran-]

Did you watch the video? And, have you ever been on a bus? I doubt this woman was being polite and quiet. Listen to that stupid creep of a woman. Now she's suing, for not being allowed to be a creep in public.

She didn't exactly epitomize humility... :rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

She didn't exactly epitomize humility... :rolleyes:

Just the opposite... she came off as the exact sort of person who would get a bus driver's attention, and force a confrontation that would lead to this outcome. People like that think the world is out to get them, and then behave in a way that makes people treat them in a negative way, confirming their persecution delusion.

[ceo_esq]

so content can matter?

It surely matters to the constitutional analysis if the content affects whether or how a restriction on expressive conduct has been applied (leaving aside instances - e.g. obscenity, slander, and so forth - where the content is beyond the scope of First Amendment protection). Is that what you meant?


Let's the woman was teaching their children that it is proper for a man to beat her wife if she disobeys?

What if she was to teach that same thing but added, because the Quran says so?

I'd say the salient question is whether the application of the restriction was affected by the content of what she said (regardless of the religious or nonreligious nature of the content


In both cases, the content is likely to be a primary motivator for people being annoyed at the talk.

Very true. Yet the strong possibility that some people would be annoyed at such talk was surely a primary motivator for the Framers to protect it via the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has said, speech that "stirs people to anger, invites public dispute, or [brings] about a condition of unrest" (absent a clear and present danger, etc.) is protected since "a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute."

Speech that doesn't annoy anyone doesn't really need the First Amendment.


Yet, by your qaulifier, the second would be protected but not the first?

They're both protected (subject to permissible content-neutral restrictions on time, place and manner).


I don't think First Amendment protection applies to out-loud speech on public transportation. No one's rights are being violated by being told to zip it on a bus or train.

Sometimes the particular content of their speech influences whether or not such people are in fact made to "zip it", which often is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Coincidentally, a judicial order that deals with some of the issues we’ve been discussing here was handed down only about a month ago by a federal district court in Louisiana (Netherland v. City of Zachary, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90798 (M.D. La. Nov. 30, 2007)). Just for the sake of discussion and as food for thought, I think it's worth covering here. In that case, the plaintiff (Mr. Netherland) was threatened by police with arrest, after multiple complaints, for standing on public property outside a restaurant/bar and very loudly and disparagingly preaching to incoming restaurant patrons about alcohol consumption and various other perceived vices (quoting at length from the Bible). Mr. Netherland was told that if he did not desist, he would be arrested under the local disturbing-the-peace ordinance, which provided, in pertinent part, for criminal penalties to be imposed on anyone who, in a disturbing or alarming manner, “address[es] any offensive, derisive, or annoying words to any other person who is lawfully in any street, or other public place; or call[s] him by any offensive or derisive name, or make[s] any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with the intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business, occupation or duty.”

Mr. Netherland sued the city, arguing that because the city utilized a content-based ordinance, he was silenced due to the fact that his speech was too annoying or offensive to some people. Next, he argued that the Ordinance violated due process by using inherently vague standards such as “annoying and offensive”, giving the government excessive discretion to enforce it. Finally, he argued that the city violated his right to the free exercise of his religion.

According to the Netherland court:

There is no question that Mr. Netherland's speech in Zachary … expressed a religious message. Religious speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. … The Supreme Court [has] stated that, “government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free- speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.” …

[T]he hearing record is replete with testimony indicating that Mr. Netherland was targeted because of the content of his message. In their original Memorandum in Opposition, Defendants characterize Mr. Netherland's speech as “fighting words,” indicating that the content of his speech was the major issue. … Defendants also argue that Mr. Netherland was threatened with arrest “due to his … conduct and not solely due to the [content] of his message.” Even if the Defendants were not solely motivated by the content of Mr. Netherland's speech, it was a major influence in their decision to threaten him with arrest, and it still does not negate the fact that the Disturbing the Peace Ordinance is content-based. …

The Supreme Court holds that “listeners' reaction to speech is not a content neutral basis for regulation.” Such “provisions cannot be viewed as being content-neutral restrictions [when they] proscribe noises that are, inter alia, 'annoying' or 'unnecessary.' These provisions invite law enforcement and others to make a determination as to whether the ordinance has been violated on purely subjective, content-based criteria.” …

The government has no rational or compelling interest in using a content- based restriction to silence Mr. Netherland's views. Even if such views are unpopular, disquieting, annoying, or offensive, a compelling governmental interest is not achieved by threatening Mr. Netherland with arrest. … Religious speech cannot be silenced because it is controversial or offensive. …

[S]ome expression, such as fighting words, may be so disruptive and inflammatory that it may be constitutionally restricted. However, the Ordinance in question can be used - as it was here - to prohibit protected speech, including words that “offend” or “annoy” listeners. Thus, the Court finds that it is overbroad because it may restrict speech that is constitutionally protected, as well as speech that is not.

Furthermore, if the Ordinance is intended to prohibit “disturbing the peace,” it does not specify a decibel or wattage level for conduct that is so loud a disruption may result. In fact, where a Louisiana noise statute specifically defined excessive disruptive noises by decibel level, a sister court Lionheart] struck down the statute as overbroad. ... The Ordinance under review here does not specifically set out an inappropriate decibel level, but rather prohibits any controversial “noise or exclamation” which police consider so “annoying” or “offensive” to listeners that a disturbance may result. Here, the Ordinance is even more overbroad than that which the court struck down in Lionhart. Like the Lionhart ordinance, the Ordinance here has “permitted persons to be punished for merely expressing unpopular views.” …

The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot make criminal the exercise of the First Amendment rights “simply because the exercise may be 'annoying' to some people.” Coates, 402 U.S. at 615. In Coates, the Court found impermissibly vague a “disorderly assembly ordinance” … [that] prohibited the assembly of persons who conduct themselves “in a manner annoying to persons passing by.” The Court held that such a prohibition “contains an obvious invitation to discriminatory enforcement against those whose association together is 'annoying' because their ideas, their lifestyle, or their physical appearance is resented by the majority of their fellow citizens.” …

Defendants argue that it is Mr. Netherland's “conduct” and not simply his “message” that is being prohibited, and such restrictions on “conduct” are permissible. This distinction was rejected under [Coates v. Cincinnati]. The ordinance struck down in Coates expressly prohibited conduct and not just annoying religious messages. The Supreme Court in Coates did not differentiate between conduct and messages. It found that a city cannot prohibit even expressive conduct that annoys others, because of the inherent vagueness of the term “annoying.” …

[As to the Free Exercise claim,] it is clear that [the city] has placed an undue burden on Mr. Netherland because he is prohibited from exercising his sincerely held religious beliefs. Mr. Netherland's undue burden outweighs Defendants' interest in enforcing its Ordinance. Zachary has no legitimate governmental interest in restricting speech that is too “annoying” or “offensive” to listeners. … [T]his Court finds that Mr. Netherland's fundamental rights to free speech and free exercise prevail.


(I've deleted internal citations and footnotes in the quoted material above.)

[pgwenthold]

I agree.

On the other hand, I do think the woman's court case will be a rather uphill battle.


Given it is a civil case, the burden is not as big, but I really have a hard time seeing it. For example, put the bus driver on the stand and ask, "If she had been reading something other than the bible - say, Harry Potter, would you have done anything differently?"

At best (for her), he'd just say, "No." At worst, he could say something like, "Heck no. Had it been something else she was reading, I would not have asked her politely. I would have just said shut up or leave."

Thereby indicated that he gave her favorable treatment because it was the bible.

Second, they'd just have to have him describe another situation where someone was asked to leave for making a non-religious disturbance. Put the burden on the plaintiff to provide evidence (testimony) that this driver had allowed a non-religious disturbance to occur without stopping it.

If you have his testimony that the expulsion was not religion related, and that he has a previous record of expelling non-religeous disturbances, and she has nothing, then the proponderance of evidence is in his favor.

[JoeEllison]

There's a difference between being arrested for being a pest, and being asked to quiet down on the bus. I don't think that particular court case has much bearing on this situation.

[BenBurch]

I think the bus driver was right... he's like the landlord... it's his job to keep the passengers from bugging each other. I was on a subway where some teen got on with a loud boom box... but I was too afraid to say anything (so was everyone else apparently)--and there was no driver in that section. I think I'd be chicken to tell the religious person to shut up (theists can be very irrational)... but I would be thankful for a bus driver to do so. It's similar to an usher asking someone to be quiet in a theatre, isn't it?

I once saw a really large, scary guy seize an incredibly loud boombox from a teen on the Chicago EL and, well, it never was going to hurt our ears again. Several people clapped. (I don't actually condone this, especially as there could have been some real violence as a consequence.)