Defending the Street Preacher: Jeremy Anders’ Case for Constitutional Protection

 

Jeremy Anders, a street preacher charged with violating Arkansas’ “harassment” statute, finds himself at the center of a crucial legal battle. His case raises important questions about the extent of constitutional protection afforded to religious speech and the potential overreach of laws that restrict it. In this article, we will explore why Jeremy Anders should win his case, citing the strong legal foundations that support his right to express his religious views freely.

Religious speech is deeply entrenched in the constitutional bedrock of the United States. The First Amendment provides supreme legal protections to those who are called to do the work of the evangelist. As established in Texas v. Johnson, the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it may be offensive or disagreeable to society. The dissemination of religious beliefs and preaching the Gospel are recognized as age-old types of evangelism with a high claim of constitutional protection, as stated in Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court recognizes that the dissemination of individual opinions on matters of public interest is an unalienable right, protected by the First Amendment. This right creates a presumption of invalidity against laws that limit free speech, as affirmed in Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts. Consequently, any law that restricts speech must be carefully crafted and narrowly drawn to serve legitimate and constitutional legislative goals, as established in Broadrick v. Oklahoma.

Oral speech is highly protected under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Religious speech, including preaching and evangelizing, receives dual protections. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., Edwards v. South Carolina, and Parks v. City of Columbus all recognize that preaching and similar activities are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment.

In addition to the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution, Arkansas State Constitution also guarantees broad protections for speech and religious free exercise. Article II, Section 6 emphasizes that the free communication of thoughts and opinions is an invaluable right of every individual. Article II, Section 24 affirms the natural and indefeasible right to worship according to one’s own conscience, with no human authority having the power to control or interfere with this right.

Arkansas has enacted the State Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which explicitly prohibits the government from substantially burdening an individual’s exercise of religion, even if the burden arises from a generally applicable rule. The burden is on the government to demonstrate that its actions are in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of achieving that interest, as stated in AR Code § 16-123-404.

Jeremy Anders is charged with violating the Arkansas “harassment” statute, ACA 5-71-208. Section (a)(5) of the statute, on its face, appears to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has established well-defined and narrowly limited exceptions to unprotected speech, which include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, and speech integral to criminal conduct. Section (a)(5) criminalizes a broad range of non-obscene, non-threatening speech without any recognized exemptions, making it unconstitutionally vague which encourages arbitrary enforcement.

Jeremy Anders’ speech falls within the realm of protected religious expressions. The government can only burden religious speech if it serves a compelling governmental interest, as required by AR Code § 16-123-404. The government’s interest in shutting down Anders’ expression falls short of this compelling standard. Moreover, the government failed to present evidence that their actions were the least restrictive means necessary to further their interest.

Jeremy Anders’ case presents a vital opportunity to reaffirm the fundamental principles of free speech and religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions. The strong legal protections that underpin religious speech, both at the federal and state levels, provide a solid foundation for Mr. Anders’ defense. Section (a)(5) of the harassment statute is overbroad and violates the First Amendment by criminalizing protected speech. It is imperative that the court recognizes the significance of upholding the constitutional rights of individuals like Jeremy Anders, ensuring the preservation of free expression for all citizens.

The Housing Crisis: Burdens and Solutions

Statistics don't lie: our nation is in the midst of a housing crisis, and its impact is felt most profoundly by middle- and lower-income Americans. Regrettably, there appears to be no immediate relief in sight. To effectively address this crisis, we must confront its root cause head-on and implement viable solutions to increase housing supply. While zoning reforms promoting denser housing and multiple family dwellings offer hope, it is imperative that we take into account the diverse needs of families as we chart a path forward.

Thankfully, policymakers have begun actively engaging in zoning reforms that facilitate the construction of affordable housing. By loosening restrictions and regulations, the process of building denser residences and multiple family housing becomes more streamlined, thereby helping to alleviate the shortage. However, it is crucial to recognize that such housing options do not cater to the preferences of every family. The widely cherished “American Dream” often encompasses aspirations of home ownership or, at the very least, a stable place to rent that includes some space. Families may desire a home with a yard for their children to play in, a garage for their cars, or even a shop. Therefore, to address the housing crisis comprehensively, we must seek solutions that accommodate a diversity of housing preferences.

In this pursuit, collaborative efforts among local governments, developers, and communities play a vital role in creating a balanced approach that addresses the pressing need for housing while respecting the concerns of local residents.

Fortunately, there are companies that have long been committed to addressing this need. For instance, Rausch Coleman Homes boasts a rich legacy of over 65 years in building affordable new homes across multiple states, including Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Alabama. By providing new homes for middle and working-class families, they not only fulfill the dreams of these families but also create opportunities for others to purchase or rent less expensive homes previously occupied by their customers. This not only helps alleviate the immense pressure caused by the housing shortage for their customers directly, but also increases the availability of more affordable housing options for lower and fixed-income individuals.

However, despite the commendable efforts of companies like Rausch Coleman Homes, they often encounter significant obstacles when striving to build affordable homes at scale. Local governments and communities, while claiming to understand the severity of the housing crisis, often resist the establishment of affordable housing in their neighborhoods. This resistance, commonly referred to as “NIMBYism” (Not In My Backyard), poses a significant hindrance to resolving the housing crisis and providing new homes for families in need.

To surmount this barrier, it is crucial for communities to recognize the urgent need for affordable housing and the far-reaching benefits it brings to society as a whole. Educational campaigns and awareness initiatives can help dispel misconceptions and foster understanding among residents. By demonstrating the positive impact of affordable housing on local economies, community cohesion, and the overall well-being of its inhabitants, we can garner support and mitigate resistance.

In conclusion, the housing crisis that currently afflicts our nation demands immediate attention and concerted efforts to find lasting solutions. While zoning reforms favoring denser housing and multiple family dwellings are crucial, we must also acknowledge and address the diverse needs of families seeking stable housing. Companies like Rausch Coleman Homes provide a glimmer of hope, but they face significant challenges due to the prevalence of “NIMBYism.” Overcoming this resistance necessitates educating communities and policymakers about the benefits of affordable housing while actively reforming zoning regulations. Only through collective action can we alleviate the burden on lower and fixed-income Americans, ultimately creating a more equitable and sustainable housing landscape.

Christian Preacher Prosecuted in Arkansas Court: Defending First Amendment Rights for All

In a case that has drawn attention to the importance of First Amendment rights and religious freedom, Jeremy Anders, a street preacher and former LGBTQ lifestyle participant, finds himself prosecuted for delivering his message of warning and hope. The trial took place on June 14th at Batesville District Court, leaving the judge to rule on Mr. Anders’ guilt or innocence after the attorneys submit their briefs for consideration.

Mr. Anders’ journey has been one of overcoming adversity and embracing faith. Having endured malicious bullying during his formative years, he sought solace in unhealthy outlets, leading to addiction and a life consumed by the LGBTQ lifestyle. However, in the spring of 2010, he underwent a life-altering transformation, surrendering his life to the Lord and breaking free from that lifestyle. Since then, he has dedicated himself to preaching, starting with a nursing home ministry in 2013 and expanding his outreach through Facebook and street preaching in 2015.

The incident in question occurred on June 5, 2022, when Mr. Anders, accompanied by his mother, felt a calling to preach on a public sidewalk in downtown Batesville, near a closed establishment. While delivering his message, he faced confrontation from an individual who threatened police involvement if he didn’t cease preaching. Later that evening, two officers warned him against returning to the same sidewalk, citing potential charges of harassment and criminal trespass. Despite continuing his ministry while avoiding conflicts, Mr. Anders was unexpectedly arrested on April 20, 2023, during his regular commute, spending over 24 hours in jail solely for preaching.

Bob Ballinger, the Director of Law and Policy for the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL), appeared as Mr. Anders’ defense counsel during the trial, seeking to protect his individual rights and defend the right to preach and speak on sidewalks in Arkansas for all citizens. Acknowledged for his advocacy on religious liberty and First Amendment issues, Ballinger voiced grave concerns regarding the incident, calling it one of the most severe violations of the First Amendment he has witnessed in Arkansas. He stressed that the Constitution safeguards religious expression through the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses, requiring strict scrutiny when government actions impede such expression.

Former Senator Jason Rapert, the Founder and President of NACL, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the fundamental importance of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully assemble enshrined in the First Amendment. He expressed disbelief at Mr. Anders’ arrest and prosecution, stating that he was peacefully exercising his rights on a public sidewalk while sharing the Word of God.

Mr. Anders himself remains steadfast in his ministry and faith, believing that Jesus Christ can liberate individuals from the sins and bondage of homosexuality. He hopes that his case will establish a precedent for the protection of religious expression in public spaces, safeguarding the rights of others.

In a society that places a high value on freedom and individual rights, the case of Jeremy Anders becomes significant in highlighting the importance of protecting First Amendment rights for all citizens. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly, fundamental pillars of a democratic society.

This case underscores the significance of safeguarding freedom of speech and religious expression. These rights empower individuals to openly express their beliefs, share their opinions on matters of public interest, and peacefully assemble to engage in dialogue and activism. When these rights are compromised or suppressed, it poses a threat to the principles of liberty and democracy upon which the nation was founded.

The outcome of Jeremy Anders’ case will have implications that extend beyond his personal circumstances. It will set a precedent for how the justice system upholds the rights enshrined in the First Amendment and whether the government can restrict and chill religious expression in public spaces. The resolution of this case will impact not only the freedom of Mr. Anders but also the freedom of every citizen who seeks to exercise their constitutional rights without fear of persecution or suppression.

The protection of First Amendment rights is not a mere formality but a vital safeguard for the values and principles that shape our nation. Jeremy's case underscores the need for ongoing vigilance and advocacy to ensure that the rights of all citizens are respected and protected, ensuring a society where diversity of thought, expression, and belief can thrive.

Overcoming Dyslexia: The Potential Power of School Choice

 

As a child, I faced a formidable challenge that shaped my educational journey - dyslexia. While some students effortlessly grasp the skills necessary to learn to read, others, like myself, require explicit and unique instruction to grasp it, or they may never fully grasp it. For us, becoming skilled readers necessitates the type of instruction that historically is seldom implemented in the average elementary classroom. Unfortunately, like most students with dyslexia, I never received this instruction.

Dyslexia is not always apparent until students fall behind in reading, as was the case for me in second grade. The sad reality is that most students with dyslexia go undiagnosed and struggle within the education system. My teachers and parents used the tool most commonly employed when students fall behind - they held me back a grade. I do not place blame on anyone; it was the norm rather than the exception, especially 40 years ago when I was in second grade. Despite the difficulties, I managed to find ways to cope and eventually achieved academic success. But today, we have the opportunity to do better.

The number of students grappling with dyslexia is significant. According to Sonya Yates, Associate Policy Director for Early Literacy at ExcelinEd, dyslexia affects up to one in five students and does not discriminate based on socioeconomic status, zip code, ethnicity, or ability level.

I witnessed this firsthand. As a junior high history teacher, I encountered numerous challenges in the classroom. However, one particular difficulty stands out: educating students who, like me, had undiagnosed dyslexia. These students had struggled with reading and writing for years, but their condition had gone without intervention during their early education.

As an educator, I witnessed the frustration and self-doubt these students experienced. They often felt overwhelmed by the demands of the curriculum and struggled to keep up with their peers. Simple tasks like reading aloud or writing assignments became sources of anxiety and embarrassment. These students, who possessed immense potential and unique strengths, were dragged down by an education system that failed to identify and address their specific needs.

Thinking back, I cannot help but wonder how different their educational journey could have been had their dyslexia been identified earlier and had they received the support that is crucial in mitigating the negative impacts of dyslexia. Support necessary to empower students to develop effective reading and writing strategies.

Now, envision a world where children with dyslexia, like myself, had access to additional resources and support through an Educational Savings Account (ESA) program. ESAs could provide the necessary financial assistance for private tutoring, dyslexia-specific interventions, or assistive technologies, effectively leveling the playing field and empowering students to overcome the challenges that I faced as a child. It would enable them to achieve even greater academic success.

ESAs offer parents the freedom to choose educational resources and services that align with their child’s unique strengths, weaknesses, and learning preferences. By expanding school choice and affording families the opportunity to explore various intervention options, ESAs have the potential to bring about a transformative impact on the educational outcomes of students with dyslexia.

Every child, regardless of their learning differences, deserves an equal opportunity to succeed academically. ESAs represent a powerful tool in our arsenal to ensure that no child is left behind due to dyslexia. We should recognize and embrace the potential of ESAs in supporting students with dyslexia and advocate for their implementation. Let us work towards a future where all children have the opportunity to unlock their full potential and thrive in their educational journey.