Via his blog Res Ipsa Loquitur, Jonathan Turley discusses a recent ruling by a Michigan appellate court in the case of the Reverend Edward Pickney.
Rev. Pickney was apparently annoyed with Judge Alfred Butzbaugh over the way that the judge had handled that Judge Butzbaugh had his case (Rev. Pickney was convicted in an election fraud case and given five years probation). As part of his probation Rev. Pickney was to "refrain from “defamatory and demeaning” communications."
Well, of course things went from bad to worse. Rev. Pickney did not refrain. Instead, he wrote an article in which he included the following:
Judge Butzbaugh, it shall come to pass; if thou continue not to hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all that is right; which I command thee this day, that all these Curses shall come upon you and your family, curses shalt be in the City of St. Joseph and Cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed shall come upon you and your family and over take thee; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body. The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning. They the demons shall Pursue thee until thou persist.
At a probation revocation hearing, another judge (Judge Butzbaugh having recused himself) took testimony from a United Methodist Church minister who explained that the "demon" paragraph was undoubtedly derived from Deuteronomy. The minister went on to explain that "Deuteronomy described a covenant between God and men and that the curses are visited upon men by God." Enough, said the judge. Probation revoked.
Reverend Pickney appealed. The appellate court examined the conditions of his probation, which included a prohibition on "engaging in defamatory and demeaning communications. The condition was a blanket prohibition on such behavior; defendant was prohibited from making defamatory or demeaning communications about any person, including coworkers, neighbors, and congregants. Such a blanket prohibition is not directly related to defendant’s rehabilitation of the election law crimes he committed, which impugned the integrity of the electoral process, or to the public’s protection from a repetition of the crimes. Crandon, supra at 128.37[.] Prohibiting defendant from engaging in any defamatory or demeaning communications is not primarily directed at preventing defendant from engaging in subsequent crimes that impugn the electoral process. Moreover, a prohibition on defamatory and demeaning communications could be narrowly tailored so that it relates directly to the election law crimes committed by defendant. For example, defendant could be prohibited from engaging in any defamatory or demeaning communications regarding Yarbrough and the other city commissioners." Here's the opinion in full.
Restrictions on speech reversed. The judge will have to put up with having demons called out upon him.
Here's more from the Michigan Messenger in an article dated July 16. The local prosecutor told the Messenger, "In retrospect, after reading all the briefs and case law I just felt that there was too much intermeshing of First Amendment and religious content. I wasn’t convinced myself that this constituted a threat. That would be possible only if you believe that Rev. Pinkney has some great power over God and the Divine One and he clearly doesn’t. Under these circumstances the argument that the defense made that it is hyperbole is probably accurate."
Here's a link to the Michigan ACLU's statement on the case. It says in part,
“The Court of Appeals opinion reaffirms the basic American value that citizens cannot be imprisoned for criticizing government officials or expressing their religious beliefs,” said Michael J. Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan Legal Director. “To our knowledge, this case marks the first time in modern history that a preacher has been thrown in prison for predicting what God might do.”
The ACLU statement also has links to the Michigan Court of Appeals decision, and to various briefs filed in the case.
Recent Comments