OK State Supreme Court Decides: Activist Feelings Do Not Trump Law & Silencing Through Protective Orders is Illegal
OK State Supreme Court Decides: Activist Feelings Do Not Trump Law & Silencing Through Protective Orders is Illegal
LGBT Activists' Protective/Gag Order Against Street Preacher Reversed
Street preachers are an interesting breed. You’ve probably seen one or two at protests or big events, preaching from scripture with a message of repentance. Some support their efforts, some detest them, and many others silently agree with their message but would never say what they do in crowded, often hostile, public spaces. Whatever you may think of street preachers, today’s ruling by Oklahoma’s State Supreme Court shows they are playing a critical role in protecting personal liberties for all.
Over the past year and a half, The V1SUT Vantage has followed a case involving street preacher and Navy veteran Richard Penkoski and two board members from a chapter of Oklahomans for Equality (OKEQ), an LGBT activist organization based in Tulsa. The organization has since renamed itself Bartlesville Equality.
Morgan Lawrence-Hayes and Sheena Hayes, a married, lesbian couple from Bartlesville, Oklahoma, served respectively as president and vice president of OKEQ-Bartlesville which hosted a pride event during September of 2022, at Unity Square, the town’s most public outdoor venue. The event was marketed as an all-ages festival but included adult-oriented drag queen performances. Following the event, thousands of citizens signed a petition to ban all “adult-oriented entertainment in public spaces”, a seemingly reasonable request where children are involved.
Penkoski protested at OKEQ-Bartlesville’s pride event alongside several other street preachers, spoke at the next city council meeting and became the loudest voice supporting the citizens’ petition. Lawrence-Hayes spoke publicly in front of the city council stating, “The pride event and drag performance did not include any form of adult entertainment…Plainly stated, there was no nudity, no obscenity and no sexually suggestive performances.”
Shortly after, Penkoski released a video of one of several performances from the festival showing Lawrence-Hayes’ statement to be inaccurate.
As OKEQ and its supporters fought to keep drag queens dancing before children in the town square, the social media banter heated up on both sides. Penkoski used two scriptures in his online remarks while expressing his belief that God created marriage “for 1 man and 1 woman". In response, Lawrence and Hayes involved local police officer Jessica Pitts, also an OKEQ-Bartlesville board member, taking Pitts’ highly conflicted police report to Washington County’s district court as the basis for a protective order.
The scriptures cited by Penkoski which triggered the protective order against him have consistently been distorted for activist purposes:
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
These scriptures do not threaten or even suggest that Penkoski or any other human will physically hold those accountable who fail to protect children. They suggest that God will do so. Lawrence and Hayes did not file for a protective order against God. They filed against Penkoski because this order was never about safety. It was about silencing the opposition.
Two Washington County District Judges Order Penkoski Silenced Despite Law
Outside of Oklahoma statute, an ex-parte protective order against Penkoski was granted on November 22, 2022, and extended on December 12, 2022, without Penkoski’s presence or awareness of the order and in spite of the appearance of conflicts of interest on behalf of Judge Russell C. Vaclaw of the Washington County District Court.
Oklahoma law requires a blood, romantic or residential relationship between parties and actual incidents of harm, physical stalking or direct harassment as the basis for a PPO. Penkoski had never met the petitioners and reports only having been in the same room with them once at a city council meeting. Therefore, the sole focus of the order became the petitioners’ claims of stalking and harassment.
Judge Vaclaw was proven to have an established relationship with local OKEQ-Bartlesville representatives, including the petitioners, outside of the courtroom as he collaborated with the group related to anti-bullying efforts. After the relationship was revealed, Vaclaw recused himself from the case and was replaced by Linda Thomas, the district court’s highest-ranking judge.
Thomas extended the restrictions by granting a five-year order against Penkoski and strengthening the gag order despite petitioner testimony during the hearing confirming Penkoski had never met or attempted any direct contact with the petitioners.
Penkoski appealed the decision to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court. The V1SUT Vantage reported on the appeal:
The Rutherford Institute Supports Penkoski’s Appeal to State Supreme Court
The Rutherford Institute, one of the nation’s leading defenders of First Amendment liberties, stepped in to support legal services for Penkoski’s appeal through Tulsa attorneys Joe M. Fears and Richard D. White, Jr. of Barber & Bartz law firm.
From The Rutherford Institute’s statement on the case:
“The Rutherford Institute is asking the Oklahoma Supreme Court to overturn the five-year restraining order against street preacher Rich Penkoski, denouncing it as excessive and a clear violation of the pastor’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Institute attorneys also point out that in the absence of any actual threats by Penkoski or proof that he sought to incite violence through the use of Bible verses, the court’s rationale appears to be based solely on claims that LGBTQ leaders felt terrorized, harassed and fearful about how others might react to the Bible verses cited in the street preacher’s social media posts.”
In May of 2023, John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute spoke with CBN News about how the decisions of Oklahoma’s Washington County District Court were threatening everyone’s individual freedoms of religion and speech. It’s a ten-minute interview every American should watch:
Attorney Joshua Payton of Tulsa represented Lawrence-Hayes and Hayes. Payton conducts a legal clinic in conjunction with OKEQ in Tulsa where he assists with legal name changes for people self-identified as transgender.
In 2022, when Governor Kevin Stitt strengthened rules supporting Oklahoma’s laws which do not allow legal gender marker changes and non-binary (X) designations, Payton expressed his belief that judges, not laws, should decide the matter:
“For judges to say they don’t have authority is just not in good faith. The constitution says they have unlimited jurisdiction, but they choose to require statutes or other authority. Quite a bit of what a judge does in trial is based on discretion,” Joshua Payton within interview with Oklahoma Watch.
Arguments Presented to the State Supreme Court
Within the filed petition in error and resulting response briefs, the petitioners (Lawrence and Hayes) claimed protection under the Domestic Violence Act, arguing Penkoski had specifically and individually harassed and stalked them based upon his social media posts.
According to the brief, Penkoski’s posts, which included specific scripture, constituted “offensive conduct” not protected by the Constitution:
“The harm associated with offensive conduct is determined by what the conduct conveys to the recipient. Fear of violence and the many kinds of disruption fear engenders is enough to find a true threat, removing offensive conduct from First Amendment protection.”
Payton presented as proof of the offensive conduct “friends of the petitioners’ expressing sincere concern for Petitioners’ safety” and the petitioners’ reporting feelings of “substantial stress”. Attorney Payton categorized the scripture utilized by Penkoski as specifically “threatening” to the petitioners.
In response, White and Fears responded by describing the petitioners’ claims as “glosses and commentaries on the evidence, and reiterations of Petitioners’ testimony about their interpretations of and feelings about Penkoski’s words.” With feelings out of the way, White and Fears presented the case that this protective/gag order was actually an attempt to silence the free speech of those with differing beliefs.
“Petitioners fail in their attempt to establish an applicable exception to the First Amendment’s dual protection of free speech and freedom of religion.” - From Penkoski’s Appellant’s Reply Brief (Richard D. White and Joe M. Fears)
The brief by White and Fears further warns that failure to reverse the district court’s protective order “would enable people to use the courts to silence speakers of viewpoints which they simply disagree with or are offended by. This is the classic “chilling effects” which naturally results in that self-censorship antithetical to the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.”
Breaking Down Claims of Threats, Targeting and Feeling Triggered
The Appellant’s Reply Brief presented by Penkoski’s attorneys explores case law to ascertain the legal meanings of terms like true threat, targeting and triggered as claimed by the Petitioners, stressing content and context as critical to their appropriate application.
What is a True Threat?
“A closely related theme also employed by Petitioners appears to suggest that a “true threat” is defined by the mental or emotional harm it causes. But this argument amounts to saying, “All threats cause significant fear or apprehension, therefore all statements that cause fear or apprehension are threats.” - Appellant’s Reply Brief
Targeting or Disagreeing?
“District Court used (the word targeting) when it concluded that Penkoski did not have a constitutional right to “target certain and specific people”…A “target” in this context is simply the object of an attack or criticism…Directing even a harsh criticism at someone, even repeatedly, does not, without more, convey that the speaker intends to commit an act of unlawful violence, and thus is not a threat…If it were, it would sweep much of the sociopolitical discourse in the history of this nation into the unprotected pile.” - Appellant’s Reply Brief
Being Triggered as a Claim of Harm
“But, as even Petitioners state, “triggered” simply refers to an emotional reaction to a stimulus perceived as “negative or harmful". Triggering someone is not permitted by the Constitution as grounds for punishment or liability.”- Appellant’s Reply Brief
Scripture as Unacceptable Speech
White and Fears further separate any claims of a true threat from Penkoski’s specific use of scripture:
“Matthew 18:6 states, “But whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to be drowned in the sea with a millstone around his neck. This means that the person would be better off to suffer a horrible death than to commit an act that incurred Divine wrath. And Romans 1:32 occurs in the middle of a discussion of the wrath of God. Neither one is a statement indicating that the speaker purposes to commit an act of violence to someone; judgment in these verses is left up to God.”- Appellant’s Reply Brief
State Supreme Court Reverses Washington County Order: Protective Orders are for Safety, Not Censorship
On June 11, 2024, after review of the case documents from Washington County District Court, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Penkoski, reversing the district court’s ruling and negating the protective order and speech restrictions against him.
According to the ruling, “The district court abused its discretion when it found that Penkoski harassed the Petitioners”:
In addition, the state’s highest court affirmed Penkoski’s right to express his opinions on social media after finding he in no way targeted or threatened any individual. Read the court’s majority decision:
In response to the decision in his favor, Richard Penkoski states:
“This case proves that the LGBT want to take away the rights of Christians or anyone who dares to criticize or expose the truth about their lifestyle and their movement. In this case, they were upset because they tried to lie to the public about the drag queen show and we exposed how the drag queens sexualized kids…The LGBT want to silence any and all opposition to their movement. They are elitists who think society needs to cater to them. They scream for special rights while they try and take your constitutionally protected rights away.” - Richard Penkoski, June 11, 2024
With an increasingly Marxist minority continually flexing their feelings as a control mechanism over dissent, if the boundaries of constitutionally protected freedoms, like the right to express one’s social or political opinions or openly exercise their faith, are not regularly and vigorously challenged, those boundaries will continue to be retracted. Enforcing polite speech that offends no one leads to no free speech for anyone.
As in this case, street preachers regularly test and strengthen the boundaries of rights many have taken for granted until recently. The next time you run into a street preacher, even if you’re not on board with the message, you might want to say thank you.
Have a tip or information you’d like to share with The V1SUT Vantage? Comment publicly to this post or email privately (connect@v1sut.com).
Copyright Notice: Individual readers are encouraged to share this original content. Others, including publications, aggregators and social media outlets not operating as an individual must request and receive written permission from The V1SUT Vantage before using this content in whole or in part. Email connect@V1SUT.com to request permission.
AMEN!!!!!! So glad to see the Supreme Court made the right decision. I would hope this serves as a reminder the our rights DO NOT end where these group's feelings begin.
And as to those who were involved in this nonsense against Richard Penkoski, they all need to be striped of their jobs or thrown out of office. That includes those two idiots in black robes, Judge Vaclaw and Judge Thomas who issued this stupid restraining order against him.
Officer Pitts also need to be fired from her job also. What she did was the dumbest, stupidest, most idiotic thing I've ever seen in my life.
And kudos to Penkoski for standing his ground. Bartlesville, you need to do better when it comes to the 1st Amendment if you want people to visit your city for business and tourism.
Great news for Christians. Evil, biased judges exposed and thwarted. Shame on you for the pain an suffering you caused to good people like Mr. Penkoski and his family and community. These judges should be removed.