The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied an attempt by Warren Balogh, a participant in the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement disbanded the protest after it turned violent. Balogh, who represented himself in court, argued that the dispersal order infringed upon his freedom of speech rights amidst the violence that erupted between protesters and counter-protesters during the event.
The court’s decision reflects a definitive answer to the question of whether the First Amendment protects speech during violent circumstances. According to the court’s decision, the responsibility to protect constitutional rights does not obligate police to secure the conditions for speech when violence is prevalent. This ruling aligns with an earlier unsuccessful suit filed by the rally’s organizer, Jason Kessler, who attempted to present a similar legal argument.
The events at the protest, where physical clashes and serious injuries occurred, led to law enforcement choosing to manage the situation by dispersing all attendees rather than selectively targeting any specific speech. The court maintained that such actions were a response to violence, not a suppression of constitutional speech rights. The concept introduced by Balogh of the “heckler’s veto” was also rejected by the court, reflecting the stance that the safety of citizens took precedence over attempts to wield the First Amendment as a defense in violent scenarios.
Additionally, Balogh’s attempt to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment in his claims was dismissed as irrelevant to the circumstance, with the court clearly stating that the amendment does not extend to cases of speech suppression or retaliatory actions related to speech. As the court concluded, both protesters and counter-protesters were equally subject to dispersal by the police, highlighting that the decision was made based on maintaining order and public safety, not favoring any group of speakers over another.
Balogh’s arguments failed to persuade the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint. The link to the case report shows that despite these continued legal efforts, the courts remain consistent in interpreting the First Amendment’s application in situations where violence overtakes peaceful assembly, reaffirming the government’s role in curbing violence over speech regulation. For more information, the full article covering this decision is available here.