Editorial: “already been there” on protected speech in St Augustine

Remember Warren Celli?

He is the publisher of St Aug Dog — a tabloid banned by a former city commission in St Augustine who had their nose out of joint because of political cartoons and satire, hyperbole, and pointed writing directed at then city manager, Bill Harriss.

When the commission enacted an ordinance in an attempt to silence Celli, and St Augustine Police threatened Celli with arrest, he did what any publisher critical of the government would have done — he sued.

What followed was Celli vs City of St Augustine, Case No. 3:98-CV-253J21B in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

(1) the City, through its police officers, prevented Celli from displaying and/or selling his newspapers and/or art on March 5, 1998;

(2) the enforcement, or threatened enforcement, by the officers of Section 22-6 was a substantial motivating factor for the above referred acts of the officers; and

(3) the City’s above acts were the proximate cause of damages sustained by Celli. The jury then awarded damages in the amount of $23,500.

In addition to the jury verdict, District Judge Nimmons ruled on some issues of law. Specifically as to the assertion Celli made regarding the irreverent, critical, and brutally un-censored “St Aug Dog” that had been banned from the streets of St Augustine, the court ruled as to the “Protected Speech Materials” claimed by Celli.

From the final order:

The Court has no hesitation in finding that Plaintiff’s materials are protected under the First Amendment. On the day of the incident, Plaintiff was selling a newspaper and visual art. The newspaper is a quintessential example of protected expression. See Mills v. State of Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219, 86 S. Ct. 1434, 1437, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966) (“The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs”). Likewise, the Court finds that the visual art is protected speech in this instance.