Seattle police finally arrived, and refused him assistance, instead taking immediate action against Meinecke. They ordered him to leave, then arrested him when he declined.

"Two days later, Meinecke encountered a similar situation at the Seattle Center, a public park where the Seattle PrideFest was occurring. Hecklers mistreated Meinecke again, and Seattle police officers silenced Meinecke again, as way of addressing the problem. The officers arrested Meinecke for refusing to depart from his intended audience," the institute said.

The fight then turned to courtrooms, and it was the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that judged, "The restrictions on his speech were content-based heckler's vetoes, where officers curbed his speech once the audience's hostile reaction manifested."

And the appeals court said, "Meinecke has established irreparable harm because a loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes an irreparable injury, and the balance of equities and public interest favors Meinecke."

A "heckler's veto" is simply when authorities shut down a speaker because someone else doesn't like the message, which has been ruled repeatedly a violation of the First Amendment.

WND reported when the conflict developed police in Seattle chose to ignore actual criminal activity that was going on, instead attacking Meinecke for his speech.

The appeals court had returned the case to the lower court with instructions for a resolution.

The judges there had said, "The prototypical heckler's veto case is one in which the government silences particular speech or a particular speaker 'due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience. As such, it 'is a form of content discrimination, generally forbidden in a traditional or designated public forum.' The Supreme Court has emphasized as 'firmly settled' that 'the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers, or simply because bystanders object to peaceful and orderly demonstrations.' … 'Listeners' reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.' …. It is apparent from the facts, including the video available from police body cameras, that the Seattle police directed Meinecke to leave the area because of the reaction his Bible-reading provoked at the Dobbs and PrideFest protests…."

The 9th Circuit said, "[T]he city maintains that the police officers merely sought to relocate Meinecke's speech rather than ban it outright…. But the government cannot escape First Amendment scrutiny simply because its actions 'can somehow be described as a burden rather than outright suppression.' … Even assuming that the officers simply instructed Meinecke to cross the street, their directions burdened Meinecke's speech. Meinecke had a right, just as those participating in the anti-Dobbs rally or the celebration of PrideFest, to use public sidewalks and streets for the peaceful dissemination of his views….

"If speech provokes wrongful acts on the part of hecklers, the government must deal with those wrongful acts directly; it may not avoid doing so by suppressing the speech. … The officers could have required the protestors to take a step back from Meinecke. They could have called for more officers—as they did after Meinecke was arrested. They could have erected a free speech barricade. They could have warned the protestors that any sort of physical altercation would result in the perpetrators' arrests. And they could have arrested the individuals who ultimately assaulted Meinecke. The city did none of those things. Instead, the police report on Meinecke's arrest simply recites that '[w]hen resources allowed in the past[,] SPD would try and keep the two opposing groups separated.' That is hardly the sort of concrete proof necessary to establish that restricting Meinecke's speech was the only way to avoid violence…."

Despite evidence of multiple assaults on Meinecke, Seattle police took "no action" against the attackers.

The appeals court noted at the Pride event, attendees were "dancing near him, holding up a flag to keep people from seeing him," and making "loud noises so he could not be heard." According to his complaint, "a couple of attendees stood close to Meinecke and howled and barked like dogs, and mocked Meinecke, while he read passages from the Bible. Meinecke did not engage with them." Another individual poured water on Meinecke's Bible.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley wrote about the dispute, "Note the protesters stole his Bible and assaulted him. Yet, the police threatened Meinecke with arrest and then took him into custody for failing to be silenced by the mob."

He said, "The opinion is a major win for free speech at a time when this 'indispensable right' is under attack by an array of government, corporate, and academic interests. We have seen Democratic politicians use the threat of violence from the left as an excuse to bar pro-life and conservative speakers. Likewise, this has become a regular practice at universities in barring conservative speakers due to security concerns while liberal speakers are free to speak on campuses."