Faust, Joey Darrell, PD-0893-14

Background

Faust and Marroquin were stopped by police behind a skirmish line on a public sidewalk (Third and Main) during a parade and prevented from proceeding toward the parade/festival area (800–900 blocks of Main) where their intended audience was located.
Police testified the line was established to keep the Kingdom Baptist Church members from communicating with that audience because of what they might say and concern about how others might react; officers said communication from the skirmish-line location to the target audience was not possible.
Arrests were made for violating a Texas statute after the defendants attempted to cross or disobey the police order; defendants were not told the line was temporary.
Appellants argue the skirmish line and order functioned as a viewpoint-based, content-based prior restraint that prevented them from reaching a willing audience on a traditional public forum (sidewalk).
Appellants invoke First Amendment precedents on targeted-audience access, buffer zones, and selective suppression of speech to argue the arrests and convictions were unconstitutional and should be reversed/affirmed for the defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Faust/Marroquin)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (as urged by brief)
Is there a constitutional right to reach the ears of a targeted audience?	Yes — speakers have a protected right to reach willing listeners; excluding them from the audience is a severe First Amendment burden.	Government may restrict location to preserve order/public safety.	Court should recognize right to reach targeted audience; distancing that prevents communication is unconstitutional.
Was the skirmish line unlawful (content/viewpoint-based restriction on public sidewalk)?	Yes — placement and purpose were viewpoint- and content-based in a traditional public forum, constituting an impermissible prior restraint.	Line was a content-neutral safety measure to prevent breach of the peace.	Skirmish line was an unconstitutional, viewpoint-driven restraint and unlawful.
May a person disobey a police order and still bring a constitutional challenge?	Yes — where the order enforces an unconstitutional licensing or restraint, persons may ignore it and challenge it (Shuttlesworth principle).	State may argue enforcement was lawful and defendants must comply.	Individuals may disobey and litigate when the order rests on an unconstitutional restraint.
When may a speaker be denied hearing access to a particular audience (buffer/alternative means)?	Denial is impermissible when alternatives are not reasonable — distance that makes communication ineffective is unconstitutional (McCullen, Baugh, Grace).	State claims alternative locations or temporary measures suffice for safety.	Denial was improper; alternatives that prevent meaningful communication are not reasonable; proximity matters and precluding access was unconstitutional.

Key Cases Cited

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (government cannot nullify speech by preventing transmission to listeners)
Heffron v. Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (forums on fairgrounds and limits on solicitation context)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (protection for offensive but noncriminal speech and limits on silencing based on listener offense)
McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (buffer zones that make normal conversation and leafleting ineffective impose significant First Amendment burdens)
United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.) (distancing demonstrators from intended audience can be unreasonable if it forecloses communication)
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional)
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (one may ignore an unconstitutional licensing scheme and challenge it)
Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056 (contextual discussion of government agents limiting access to protected persons; not controlling here)
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (total bans on speech on public sidewalks around government buildings are not justified by asserted interests)