Protecting loud, unfriendly speech
A Times EditorialPublished June 22, 2007
The St. Pete Pride festival is an annual event where hundreds of gays and lesbians, their families and supporters come together to enjoy a day of revelry, celebration and fun. The parade and festival should be a symbol of St. Petersburg's hospitality toward the gay community. But last year a small group of religious protesters used the occasion to spout their bigotry. The city is looking for ways to contain the protesters during this year's St. Pete Pride event set for June 30, but it needs to keep the First Amendment at the fore as its planning goes forward.
It is too bad that Larry Keffer of the Biblical Research Center in Tampa, who led the anti-gay effort last year and intends to show up at the festival again, feels the need to put his intolerance on such display. He and his ragtag group used bullhorns and touted huge signs while tossing insults like "You're a sodomite! You're filthy" to the crowd. The St. Petersburg police demonstrated commendable restraint by allowing the speech while preventing physical fights.
In an effort to control things this year, the City Council passed an ordinance that would give police the power to enforce conditions included in street closure permits where alcoholic beverages are served. According to city attorney John Wolfe, the festival permit will ban public use of amplified sound equipment and the holding of signs. A cordoned-off area for protesters on the outskirts of the festival will be set up where those things are permissible, and anyone without a sign or a bullhorn will be allowed to meander around the festival communicating their message, Wolfe says.
As distressing as it must be to hear a hateful speech, Wolfe is right. Keffer and his group have a constitutional right to express their views. The festival is open to the public and takes place on city streets. To shut down one point of view because it provokes and offends would clearly violate free speech guarantees. Freedom means that occasionally we are all going to be offended by another's views.
While the religious protesters can be excluded from the parade itself, since the event organizers can determine who gets to participate, the protesters cannot be removed from areas where the public has gathered to watch.
The only quibble we have with the city's plan is that it should reconsider the ban on signs. As long as the signs do not block the public's view of the parade, they should be allowed as protected speech.