Permittted Free Speech and Open-Air Preaching in Georgia

"Permitted free speech?" repeats the man incredulously, "That's an oxymoron!"

It's March 28, 2008, a sunny day on what looks to be the central quad of Georgia Southern University. A group of people, led by a young man with longish brown hair, confront an administrator, who is flanked by a two burly campus police. What's the problem?

The man, Benjamin Bloedorn, had, along with a handful of other men, been evangelizing in public, "open-air preaching" (with some sign-waving and singing as well) in an attempt to encourage GSU students and passersby to convert. It appears, however, that in doing so he violated GSU's free speech policy, which requires that non-sponsored speakers apply for and receive permission to speak on campus. During the confrontation, which eventually led to Bloedorn's arrest, Bloedorn and his associates argued that GSU, as a public university supported by state taxpayer funds, cannot claim to be private property and thus has no standing to dictate who may or may not speak on their grass and sidewalks.

The police disagreed. So too, according to a story today on the conservative site Onenewsnow, did the Georgia court. Of course, Onenewsnow spins the story as yet another slight in a context of anti-Christian bias by the state: "Christian witnessing a no-no on campus," reads the headline. Other conservative evangelical websites echo this sentiment, alleging both that the act constitutes an attack on Christianity and an unconstitutional hindrance on free speech.

The Bloedorn affair represents something of a trend in which confrontational evangelists (and other kinds of activists) challenge the state's right to police free speech and expression. Other evangelists, such as Michael Marcavage of the group Repent America, regularly run afoul of officers' charging them with trespassing. Such charges, of course, fuel Marcavage's particular evangelistic philosophy, which interprets resistance by authorities as proof that God's word is being preached (and resisted by the devil).

Bloedorn, from what I can tell, seems linked to the Faithful Soldier School of Evangelism, a kind of homegrown training/evangelism group led by Jason and Sara Storms, specializing in confrontational campus evangelism, particularly around issues such as pro-life and anti-homosexuality. Bloedorn is an alumnus of this school (you can see him in Faithful Soldier pictures here and here), though I don't think the GSU protest was FSSE activity. Broadly, FSSE seems to follow a Ray Comfort-type philosophy that the best, most Biblically based evangelism takes place via open-air preaching that uses the Law (i.e., the Ten Commandments) to inspire listeners to confront their own guilt before God, repent, and receive Christ.

I gather that Bloedorn and company were doing just that when the GSU officials confronted them. This being the Youtube age, a video account of this confrontation and the subsequent arrest exists. Here's Bloedorn being arrested:




Videos of the arguments leading up to the arrest are here here and here. These video accounts match up to that contained in the brief filed on behalf of Bloedorn by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.

Now, Bloedorn's evangelistic strategy of course interests me, given my research interests. But, as a matter of clarification, let me address the free speech arguments advanced by Bloedorn and by the ADF.

Is "permitted free speech" an oxymoron? Only in the abstract. In practice, no such thing as a right to utterly unrestricted speech has ever been recognized by the US government. Indeed, for a long time the "freedom of speech" meant only that the US federal government could not impose "prior restraint"--preemptively forbid speech. This prohibition did not necessarily extend to the state or local governments, nor did this prohibition exclude punitive measures by the State against speakers. Only in the twentieth century did speech rights come to mean more what we recognize today as the right of an individual to say or express whatever he or she pleases without fear of censorship or state reprisal.

And even this right isn't absolute. The right to free speech has never been understood to cover direct threats ("I'm going to kill you if you vote for X candidate"), incitements to violence ("you should shoot X candidate in the face when she gets up to speak"), disruptions of the peace (e.g., shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre), obscenity, or libel/slander. Nor is speech allowed just anywhere, at any time, whenever or wherever someone pleases. The US relies on a scheme of ordered liberty, not a free-for-all yelling match. The right to express whatever you'd like does not guarantee you an audience.

In this case, the evangelists repeatedly make two arguments: 1) that GSU, as a public university, cannot claim private property or restrict speech on its grounds; and 2) that the notion of permitted free speech is unconstitutional. The latter claim, as I've demonstrated, does not stand. All speech operates under certain prior restraints in the interests of public safety. As fo the former claim, the evangelists use questionable definitions of public and private. Yes, GSU is likely a public university. And yes, GSU has the right to restrict trespassers and speakers--especially when said speakers are not students at GSU (as Bloedorn was not).

The University official had it right when she pointed out to the evangelists that one cannot simply traipse into a courthouse or senate building, set up signs, and begin preaching (the camera operator--whom I think was Bloedorn--tried to argue that point, insisting he had heard of people who had done just that). The freedom of speech isn't the same as a freedom of universal access. Georgia taxpayers doubtless do pay for a great deal of GSU's budget; it does not follow that any one taxpayer has unfettered access to all parts of the University.

Tellingly, the ADF's brief does not attempt to make either of the evangelists' arguments. Instead it suggests that 1) the boundaries between public sidewalks and GSU property are unclear; and 2) GSU's procedures for granting non-sponsored speakers access are arduous and unfair, constituting a prior restraint.

Those procedures, by the way, are as follows (copied from the brief):

It is the policy of Georgia Southern to permit the use of facilities by the general community in a manner which does not compete with the ongoing programs of the University. Speakers who are not sponsored by a campus organization may request permission to initiate a gathering on campus. Request forms are available in the Russell Union Office, Room 2070.

If a non-campus speaker is approved, the University reserves the right to assign space and designate time frequency and length of the proposed activity. A typical length of time for a speaker is one and a half hours. Frequency should be no more than once a month under normal circumstances. Under no conditions will a noncampus speaker be permitted to sell items or solicit funds on campus. (Members of the same group or organization dealing with the same general topic will be considered one speaker for the purpose of scheduling stipulation.)

The administrator confronting the evangelists actually went over this procedure several times, offering them numerous opportunities to leave, fill out the form, get permission, and return. The evangelists seemed unaware of these procedures and, when informed of them, pointedly refused to abide by them.

The legal-civil issues at play here seem clear. GSU had set procedures for non-sponsored speakers to speak; Bloedorn and company declined to follow them.

The theological issues here actually interest me more.

More tomorrow,

JF