Opinion ID: 148685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Speech Restrictions in a Traditional Public Forum

Text: Because the Magistrate Judge and the District Court wrongly concluded that the 6th Street sidewalk was a nonpublic forum, their principal analyses subjected the government's restrictions on Marcavage's speech to an improperly low constitutional bar. The constitutionality of those restrictions instead must be measured against a more exacting set of benchmarks. [10] In a traditional public forum, the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. Perry, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. 948. To determine whether speech restrictions in such a forum are constitutional, we apply the time, place, and manner doctrine. Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263, 271 (3d Cir.2009). Under that doctrine, the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of ... expressive activity, so long as such restrictions are content neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternatives for communication. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992) (plurality opinion) (citations omitted). However, if speech restrictions in a public forum are content-based, we test their constitutionality by asking whether they were necessary to serve a compelling government interest, were narrowly drawn to achieve that interest, and were the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. See Perry, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. 948. The burden is on the government to justify a restriction on speech. See Startzell, 533 F.3d at 201; N.J. Citizen Action v. Edison Twp., 797 F.2d 1250, 1255 (3d Cir.1986). The first element of the test asks whether the restrictions on Marcavage's speech were content-neutral or content-based. As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Content-neutral restrictions are those that are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41, 48, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986) (internal quotation marks, emphasis and citations omitted). Content-based restrictions, in contrast, encompass restrictions not only on particular viewpoints but also an entire topic. Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). To determine if a restriction is content neutral, `the principal inquiry in speech cases ... is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys. Startzell, 533 F.3d at 197 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)) (other alterations omitted). It is the government's purpose that controls. Id. (citation omitted). To find that that purpose is content-based, [s]omething must point decisively to a motivation based on the subject matter, or content, of the speaker's message.... McTernan, 564 F.3d at 653. Deciding whether a particular regulation is content-based or content-neutral is not always a simple task. Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994). As he did before both the Magistrate Judge and the District Court, Marcavage asks us to infer that his speech was suppressed because of its content based primarily on: (1) the presence of a large number of carriage drivers as well as other pedestrians, including breast cancer awareness marchers who were proceeding along the 6th Street sidewalk at the same time as his demonstration but were not told to move to a different location; and (2) the Park rangers' testimony that they both observed and were concerned that those pedestrians as well as Liberty Bell visitors were disturbed by Marcavage's anti-abortion message. [11] The Magistrate Judge acknowledged the testimony bearing on these points but found that the marchers, like other pedestrians using the sidewalk, were in constant motion and therefore were not obstructing traffic flow while, he noted, Marcavage and his group were stationary. Without explicitly addressing the rangers' testimony about their perception of the reaction to Marcavage's message, the Magistrate Judge found no credible evidence that [Marcavage] was asked to move his protest due to the content of his message. (J.A. I 30.) The District Court, seeing no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's findings, likewise rejected Marcavage's claim in this vein. Although the Magistrate Judge did not say so explicitly, in finding that Marcavage's removal was content-neutral he evidently credited the rangers' testimony that their motivation for removing Marcavage was based exclusively on their concern for public safety and their observation that Marcavage's activities were creating a choke point. [12] The Magistrate Judge made that finding without explaining how it squared with the rangers' other testimony highlighting their concerns about the reaction of other individuals to Marcavage's speech or with photographic and video evidence painting a decidedly different picture from the one the rangers described. By the same token, although not stated in as many words in his opinion, the Magistrate Judge apparently discounted Marcavage's testimony that his removal was a result of the reaction of other individuals as well as his argument that the rangers regulated the speech of no one else on the 6th Street sidewalk. In other words, although the Magistrate Judge did not directly resolve any conflicts in the trial testimony and evidence and did not make any express credibility determinations, we think it plain enough that his content-neutrality finding derived from his conclusion that the rangers were credible and that Marcavage was not, at least on this central point of contention. We ordinarily defer to a trial court's factual findings, particularly when they are predicated on credibility determinations. See United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 464 (3d Cir.2003); see also, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 149-50 (3d Cir.2002). We adhere to that default rule, however, only where the trial court's decision is based on testimony that is coherent and plausible, not internally inconsistent and not contradicted by external evidence[.] United States v. Igbonwa, 120 F.3d 437, 441 (3d Cir.1997). As the Supreme Court has explained, a trial judge may [not] insulate his findings from review by denominating them credibility determinations, for factors other than demeanor and inflection go into the decision whether or not to believe a witness. Documents or objective evidence may contradict the witness' story; or the story itself may be so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it. Where such factors are present, the court of appeals may well find clear error even in a finding purportedly based on a credibility determination. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (citation omitted). In our view, the factors the Anderson Court described are attendant here. There are simply too many inconsistencies and gaps in the testimony of the government's witnesses, not to mention substantial contradictions between that testimony and other evidence in the record, for us to accept the finding that Marcavage's removal was not motivated by the content of his speech. Because deference to the trier of fact ... is the rule, not the exception, id. at 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, we will lay out the reasoning behind our conclusion in some detail. Ranger Saperstein testified that he heard complaints about Marcavage's demonstration [f]rom visitors, from the horse carriage drivers, and from other employees. (J.A. II 58.) When Marcavage asked Saperstein what the problem was with demonstrating on the sidewalk, Saperstein told Marcavage that the reason he had to move was that he was not giving others the option of not seeing his signs. Saperstein also testified that the complaints he received were tied directly to the the signs and the messages depicted and that [p]eople were upset that they were there.... (J.A. II 67.) Saperstein acknowledged that he told Marcavage that he could not stand near the Liberty Bell Center's entrance or exit because he wasn't giving ... the visitors ... the option of not seeing [his] signs, and because they [had] no choice but to be hit with [his] message. (J.A. II 68.) When asked whether one of his concerns was that Marcavage was not giving people the option of not seeing his signs, Saperstein responded, Yeah, that was one of the  one of the concerns. (J.A. II 69.) Chief Ranger Crane also testified that he was concerned about the impact of Marcavage's message on Liberty Bell visitors. Crane stated that he said the following to Marcavage over the telephone: I said to him, you know, Michael, it's kind of unfair. You are at an advantage of speaking, you know, to a group that can't leave. Those individuals are there to see the Liberty Bell and if they want to see the Liberty Bell, they have to listen to your message. (J.A. II 170.) Later on, Crane attempted to clarify those remarks. He testified that he did not have a concern of whether those individuals cared to hear his message or not. What I believe that I was trying to impress on Mr. Marcavage was that there were plenty of areas that he could go to and speak his message ... where people could choose or choose not to go. (J.A. II 197.) Crane reiterated that stance at various points during his testimony. Nan Byrne, another ranger working at the Liberty Bell Center on the day of Marcavage's demonstration, echoed Saperstein's and Crane's testimony about the concern that Liberty Bell Center visitors were constrained to listen to Marcavage's message and Saperstein's observation of those visitors' reactions to Marcavage's message. She was asked whether some people were perhaps upset by the message that was being delivered by the people with the bullhorn[.] (J.A. II 121.) Her answer: Well, sure they were. Sure, I mean, you know, it was a pretty intense message, and there were people with little kids and stuff, so yes, some of them were upset with the message. ( Id. ) When asked whether that reaction was part of her concern, Byrne stated, No, my concern was  well, it was that, but the bullhorn, too. ( Id. ) If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (citations omitted); see also Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564, 567, 90 S.Ct. 1312, 25 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970). Thus, in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). These principles are well embedded in First Amendment jurisprudence. Together they stand for the proposition that where the government regulates speech based on its perception that the speech will spark fear among or disturb its audience, such regulation is by definition based on the speech's content. [13] See Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) (Listeners' reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. (citations omitted)); Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. County Sheriff Dep't, 533 F.3d 780, 789 (9th Cir.2008); Grider v. Abramson, 180 F.3d 739, 749 (6th Cir. 1999). Ever vigilant against improper attempts to value some forms of speech over others, City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 60, 114 S.Ct. 2038, 129 L.Ed.2d 36 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring), the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have consistently held unconstitutional regulations based on the reaction of the speaker's audience to the content of expressive activity. [14] Here, the rangers' testimony reflects that they: observed that Liberty Bell visitors and pedestrians were disturbed by and complained about Marcavage's preaching and the graphic images on the signs displayed by Marcavage's group; were concerned by visitors' reactions to that message and those signs; and thought it unfair that those individuals were being subjected against their will to listening to that message and viewing those signs. Significantly, they testified that their decision to remove Marcavage was a product of, among other things, those concerns. Marcavage testified that he travels throughout Pennsylvania to express the grievous situation we have in our nation where over four thousand babies are killed at the hands of abortionists. (J.A. II 305.) He illustrated his view of the abortion procedure: Their beating hearts are stopped, they are torn limb from limb in their mother's womb in the name of choice. ( Id. ) His group's perception of the tangible aftermath of that procedure was emblazoned on its signs for all to see; they bore various vivid depictions of mutilated fetuses. No matter one's personal feelings about abortion, the images are jarring, their shock value unmistakable. Presumably, that was the point. But [s]peech cannot be ... punished or banned[] simply because it might offend its audience. Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 134-35, 112 S.Ct. 2395; see Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, Inc. v. City of Bryan, 421 F.3d 314, 326 (5th Cir.2005) ([T]he government cannot restrict speech out of a concern for the discomfort it might elicit in listeners. (citations omitted)). The government in effect ratified what it perceived as listener hostility to Marcavage's speech when it silenced that speech. That act, coupled with its impetus, constitutes a content-based restriction on speech. [15] Our problem with the District Court's content-neutrality finding is not based just on the incongruity between the rangers' testimony about their concerns over the impact of Marcavage's message and their testimony about the other reasons for their decision to restrict Marcavage's speech. We also find their professedly exclusive motive of hazard avoidance irreconcilably at odds with their admissions that no hazard ever materialized. Saperstein testified that he observed many people walking along the 6th Street sidewalk and several times described the area around Marcavage, his co-demonstrators, and their signs as a choke point. ( E.g., J.A. II 48, 81.) Crane, although he was not present during Marcavage's demonstration, said more or less the same thing. ( E.g., J.A. II 180.) But importantly, neither Saperstein nor Crane testified in any detail about what Marcavage was specifically doing to block pedestrian traffic despite being afforded ample opportunity to do so. For instance, when Marcavage's counsel argued during Saperstein's cross-examination that the rangers had not identified any public safety issue, (J.A. II 82), the Magistrate Judge instructed Saperstein to be more specific. The prosecutor then asked Saperstein to [t]ell us safety hazards regarding the entry and exit to the Liberty Bell Center ... at around the time that Mr. Marcavage was in the area. (J.A. II 83.) Saperstein responded: There was a great amount of people in that area, because the  because of the activities going on. There was a large amount of people in an area that I was trying  that I needed to keep fairly clear in case an emergency happened. There is only one way in and one way out. So, I guess if I needed to get somebody in, there are two ways to get in. But, there are very, very limited access points. ( Id. ) That testimony, of course, hardly addresses Marcavage's conduct with any particularity. Moreover, Saperstein's own testimony undercuts his assertion that Marcavage was creating a choke point. He testified, for instance, that anyone could stop and talk on the sidewalk and that Marcavage by himself did not block traffic. When asked whether everybody was able to get passed [sic] Mr. Marcavage, Saperstein replied, At this point, yeah, looking at it, there is [sic] people getting through. (J.A. II 86.) When asked whether Marcavage ever physically blocked anyone, Saperstein said, Not physically, no. ( Id. ) Ranger Trevor Belasco, who took several photographs of the 6th Street sidewalk and surrounding area on the day of Marcavage's demonstration, also testified that the photographs did not show that the demonstration in any way impeded the ability of pedestrians to walk freely along the sidewalk or to enter or exit the Liberty Bell Center. (J.A. II 104, 111.) Ranger Byrne likewise testified that no one standing in line to enter the Liberty Bell Center was prevented from doing so or was otherwise blocking pedestrian traffic. (J.A. II 120-21.) And Chief Ranger Crane did not answer affirmatively when asked whether Marcavage was blocking traffic. Instead, he stated that Marcavage's group was in a location where they had signage and were using megaphones and that Marcavage [i]ndividually, by himself, I do not think that he... was specifically hindering [orderly visitation at the Liberty Bell Center]. (J.A. II 179.) When asked, however, whether members of Marcavage's group depicted in a photograph were blocking access to the Liberty Bell Center, Crane answered decisively in the negative. (J.A. II 209.) The testimony of the government's witnesses that Marcavage's activities might produce or were producing unsafe conditions also directly conflicts with video and photographic evidence that was presented at trial and is included in the record on appeal. [16] The video evidence, in particular, tells a very different story from the one the government evoked at trial. It shows Marcavage holding a bullhorn, though not any signs, at around 12:35 p.m. while standing alone on the Belgian block portion of the 6th Street sidewalk. There is no one either in his immediate vicinity or trying to circumvent him. Nor is there any indication of a potential or an actual logjam among the pedestrians using the 6th Street sidewalk. In fact, the video shows an entirely fluid procession of individuals walking in both directions and entering the Liberty Bell Center unfettered and without fanfare. The video also shows that additional members of Marcavage's group were positioned further down the sidewalk  still on the Belgian block  and away from the Liberty Bell Center entrance. Marcavage is nowhere to be seen. But even if he were present at that location, there is again no indication that these demonstrators were impeding, or even represented a threat to, pedestrian traffic. Perhaps most strikingly, the video reflects that several clutches of people unaffiliated with Marcavage's demonstration were congregated in even greater concentrations than Marcavage's group. At one point, for instance, there appear to be approximately twelve individuals arranged in a cluster; they reach almost to what seems to be the middle of the 6th Street sidewalk. Further down still and even closer to the Liberty Bell Center's entrance is a tour group consisting of around fifteen people, huddling together while listening to their tour leader. And throughout the day there was a breast cancer awareness march involving large numbers of individuals walking in throngs along the sidewalk, much of the time even closer to the Liberty Bell Center's entrance and exit than Marcavage or his co-demonstrators. We could go on but the point, we think, is made. After exhaustively reviewing the entire record and exercising our independent judgment, we cannot accept the District Court's finding that the government restricted Marcavage's speech for content-neutral reasons, as that finding is untethered to, or wholly at variance with, the record as a whole. Cf. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (appellate court may not upset factual finding [i]f the [trial] court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety  (emphasis supplied)). We have not overlooked the Anderson Court's admonition that [w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous, id. at 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (citations omitted), and that [t]his is so even when the [trial] court's findings do not rest on credibility determinations, but are based instead on physical or documentary evidence or inferences from other facts, id. But there are not two permissible views of the evidence here. Aside from a passing mention in an unrelated context, neither the Magistrate Judge's nor the District Court's opinion reflects any consideration of either the tension between the rangers' bald assertions that Marcavage was creating a choke point and their total inability to describe in any detail the existence or imminent conception of such, or the video and photographic evidence contradicting the rangers' accounts. Cf. McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F.3d 36, 45 (1st Cir.2001) (A [trial] court's findings of fact must be anchored in probative evidence. (citations omitted)); United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 717 (1st Cir.1992) (factual findings must be based on more than the trial judge's hunch, no matter how sound his instincts or how sagacious his judgment). In our view, in light of (1) the rangers' testimony that they were concerned about the effects of Marcavage's speech on other individuals on the 6th Street sidewalk; (2) the absence of any probative evidence that Marcavage was in fact creating or risked creating a traffic flow problem; and (3) the lack of any indication that the rangers restricted the speech of even a single other individual on the 6th Street sidewalk, there is only one permissible view of the weight of the evidence: the rangers' actions were motivated by the content of Marcavage's speech. Cf. Brown, 586 F.3d at 295-96 & n. 39; McTernan, 564 F.3d at 652-53; Startzell, 533 F.3d at 198-201.