Welp, it looks like homophobic street preacher Jim Deferio’s years of spewing antigay vitriol are finally paying off.
The city of Syracuse, New York was just ordered to pay him $127,000 after a judge ruled his rights were violated when he was prevented from protesting a Pride event.
The incident happened during the CNY (Central New York) Pride festival back in 2015 when police set up a 40-foot buffer zone for protesters outside the ticket booth.
Deferio, who has a reputation about town for staging loud protests at LGBTQ events around town, was told he would have to protest the festival from across the street.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Deferio responded by filing a lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection were being infringed upon.
Now, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn ruled that the city’s actions indeed violated Deferio’s rights, saying the First Amendment “applies to loathsome and unpopular speech with the same force as it does to speech that is celebrated and widely accepted.”
“The right to free speech may not be curtailed simply because the speaker’s message may be offensive to his audience,” Kahn said in his ruling.
Syracuse.com reports that the city has agreed to pay a six-figure settlement to the preacher. He will receive $1 in nominal damages plus an additional $127,247 to cover his legal fees and other expenses.
The city doesn’t have that kind of extra money around, so its going to have to borrow it to pay the fee.
Related: College student trolls antigay preacher in the most perfect way possible
Chrisk
If I was in NY and I knew he’d be there I’d load up my paint gun and take a few shots. Juvenile I know but would be so satisfying.
Billysees
Your suggested kind of juvenile behavior doesn’t sound so bad in this case.
What about a ‘disturbing the peace’ charge against this guy.
CarrieV
I promise you that your gofun dme account for bail would be at least as much as the POS anti-gay pastor got in his lawsuit 😉
paul dorian lord fredine
wtf? he wasn’t be prevented from spouting his shit he was just being told to take it across the street. maybe the next time the dumpster comes to speak in my city and the police say i can’t do it unless i move back 30 feet i should sue and use this case as precedent. believe me i won’t settle for a measly $127K.
MacAdvisor
The guy gets $1, hardly a windfall. The lawyer is getting paid, that who is making money and the city should have know better. The Supreme Court was very clear about this exact thing in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), four years before the incident in New York. In Snyder, the police tried to prevent the grieving family from seeing the Westboro church’s anti-gay protest concerning their son (who was not gay, but died in action serving in the US military. The Westboro church believes serving in the military advances the gay agenda.) The Supremes ruled protests cannot be moved based on the content of the speech.
This is why that wrestler kid from Modesto will ultimately get his scholarship back. The state cannot punish someone based on the content of their speech.
aequalitasTN
@MacAdvisor
I disagree with your characterization of Snyder v. Phelps; SCOTUS merely said that the content of speech on a matter of public concern cannot form the basis for a liability claim for emotional distress, given that the victims were not a captive audience. You are, however, correct about the government being unable to regulate the content of speech and generally direct peacful assemblies absent a compelling interest (see, amongst many others, Cohen v. California [1971] read together w/ Coates v. Cincinnati [1971]).
Also, you may want to read a little more on the Modesto kid. While no one can deny the content of his speech was dispicable (as is the case here), you are correct that the government cannot punish him for it; HOWEVER, from the several stories I have read on the matter, including the one from the LA times, he signed a contract when he joined the sports program that had a morality clause, which allowed the university to revoke his scholarship for failure to adhere to the contractual provisions. Now if you want to make some argument that the terms of the contract were not violated (if you know the details), or that the morality clause violates public policy or Constitutional right, which is going to be a hard argument in the 9th Circuit, given Loew’s Inc. v. Cole (1950), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. Lardner (1954), and Scott v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc (1957), then it would be worth considering it further.
Tête Carrée
The Phelps DO have to stay a certain distance from funerals. The city should have just looked up the rulings that the Phelp’s have already forced grieving families to pay for. But as usual, heterosexuals are completely ignorant of what has happened to the gay community because it’s ok with them. Can we go into churches then and f*ck on the pulpit?
You, Mr AssAdvisor, stop sucking on heterosexual azz. Heterosexual men don’t even wipe their azzes. Ick. I suspect you are one of them.
irbaboon
christians are such jerks
petej
what????? he still got to protest. what about security–keeping differing views separated?
aequalitasTN
What I cannot stand here is that this individual was tap dancing all over the line, but he unfortunately did not cross it, which technically makes the city’s actions incorrect; he knew exactly how to do this to inflict the maximum amount of insult without any consequences whatsoever, and (technically) prevailing in a 1983 claim as well. Do I hate everything this idiot says and likely stands for? Yes. The judge is, however, correct as a matter of law.
All that having been said, the city would techically be well within its rights to raise taxes to pay for this and publish this guy’s assanine behavior and case as the necessitated reason for doing so, especially since he was allowed to continue protesting. He would have no case for slander or libel, since it is all true. If there is one thing that would make the community see his idiocy, it is taxing everyone for it, which tends to piss people off pretty good. So, in other words, take it to the court of public opinion with the right presentation to show Mr. Deferio that free speech plays both ways.
James
THE JUDGE IS A NOTORIOUS ANTI-GAY HOMOPHOBE.
DON’T PAY THE CREEP. HE IS NOT WORTH TWO CENTS, NOTHING BUT A STINKING HATE FILLED NAZI.