Comments from feedback form - "I am confused, as to what the ..."
I am confused, as to what the bond is for. Is it to keep him out of jail? Or to pay for police protection?
It was a bond to pay for police protection. As the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in the past, it is unconstitutional to require a bond for police protection. Perhaps the article was not clear enough. It was a free speech case, and only happened to concern a pastor who wanted to speak out against a particular religion. In the US, so-called "prior restraint", that is preventing someone from speaking out before they actually have, is unconstitutional. Making them pay a bond for police protection in order to speak out is therefore unconstitutional also. Mattisse (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)