Minister sues city over right to protest abortion
By LEE TANT, T&D Staff Writer Sunday, July 05, 20096 comment(s) | Default | Large
A state Republican Party official is suing the city of Orangeburg, saying it stopped him from participating in an abortion protest.
This marks the second time the Rev. Charles Butler has sought damages from the city over his right to protest. He won a settlement for an undisclosed amount in 2006 based on a nearly identical situation.
The latest incident stems from when Butler, the second vice chairman of the S.C. Republican Party, and several others protested against then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's stance on abortion in January 2008.
According to the lawsuit, Butler says an Orangeburg Department of Public Safety officer told him he couldn't protest without a permit.
He contends the officer wasn't properly informed by his superiors that the ordinance requiring a permit was unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The lawsuit says Butler left the protest on the corner of John C. Calhoun Drive and Magnolia Street over fear of being arrested.
The city has a different take.
Attorney David Lindemann, who is representing Orangeburg, says the officer was simply mistaken about the law.
He says Butler left prior to a superior officer telling other protestors they could proceed with picketing and that Butler chose not to return.
Lindemann also said city policymakers acknowledged the ordinance requiring a permit for such events wasn't enforceable.
Butler and the city have had issues over protests before.
The ordinance was ruled unconstitutional in state court after Butler challenged a $130 citation he got for protesting abortion in 2004.
Butler's Columbia attorney, Brian Gambrell of Hamilton and Associates, said the old ordinance gave the city unlimited authority to grant permits. It required even a single protester to apply for a permit, he said.
A city judge upheld the ticket. But the First Judicial Circuit Court of Commons Pleas overturned Butler's conviction and ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.
The lawsuit claims that in October 2005, Butler was protesting alone under the assumption a permit was no longer required.
An ODPS officer told Butler he did need a permit.
Butler told the officer that ordinance was no longer valid and he didn't need a permit to protest sexual immorality. The lawsuit said the officer wasn't informed of that.
Butler said he feared being arrested during that incident, too. He filed a lawsuit against the city and won a settlement in early 2006.
The city's new ordinance, which took effect in April 2008, only requires groups larger than 25 people to apply for a permit. It also includes a non-discrimination clause.
A permit can be rejected by the city if a protest is deemed to potentially cause unreasonable public interference, seeks profit for private interests, substantially diverts public safety personnel or poses a safety threat.
A hearing on Butler's latest lawsuit against the city will take place next Thursday at the U.S. District Court in Columbia.
n
T&D Staff Writer Lee Tant can be reached by e-mail at ltant@timesanddemocrat.com or by phone at 803-534-1060. Discuss this and other stories at TheTandD.com.
To subscribe to the print edition of The Times and Democrat, click here.
bravo14sc wrote on Jul 6, 2009 3:52 PM:
rump wrote on Jul 6, 2009 1:08 PM:
Silok wrote on Jul 5, 2009 7:51 PM:
rump wrote on Jul 5, 2009 7:33 PM:
At least you jumped on the messenger and not the message. "
confisus_sum wrote on Jul 5, 2009 1:03 PM:
cherokee wrote on Jul 5, 2009 10:36 AM: