��֭����

It’s the holiday season, when the lights are blinking, the bells are ringing, and families are lining up to see festive displays of the demon-god  in the town square. 

But this year, citizens in Concord, New Hampshire, might not get to enjoy all the holiday cheer after vandals decapitated the Baphomet display set up by the Satanic Temple. In fact, the display has proven so controversial that city officials promised to review the display policy next year.

Concord’s government would do well to remember that any rules about expressive displays in public spaces must be viewpoint-neutral, meaning the Satanic Temple has the same right to put up a holiday display as any other group. 

Protecting the Satanic Temple’s right to speak also protects the expressive rights of Christians — and Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and everyone else. 

‘Happy Hellidays!’ from the Satanic Temple

So what happened? 

Concord’s City Plaza is open for unattended displays by private groups during the holiday season. In early December, the  — which  itself as a religious organization with a mission to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits” — put up a statue of the goat-headed deity Baphomet in Concord’s City Plaza, under a permit  by the city. 

Baphomet’s temporary neighbors included a nativity scene placed by a rural civic group and a Bill of Rights display put up by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But just days after the Satanic Temple’s statue went up, it was  — its goat head knocked off, its robed torso severed from its legs, and its tablet bearing the tenets of the Satanic Temple smashed to pieces. Police are investigating the vandalism, but the destroyed statue was taken down.

Then, earlier this week, a  went up, this time accompanied by a copy of the permit allowing its placement. In less than 48 hours, that statue, too, was . The police identified a suspect and said charges are forthcoming. That’s the proper response to vandalism of lawful displays: arrest and prosecute the vandals — don’t impose a “heckler’s veto” by censoring expression that provokes public hostility.

City officials decry Satanic holiday display, promise review next year

But Baphomet’s future — and the First Amendment rights of citizens and groups to put up such displays — is threatened by more than just vandals in Concord. 

Baphomet found his way to the city, because Concord created a public forum, where the government’s authority to restrict expression is strictly limited. Concord can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activity there, including permit requirements for temporary installations, but viewpoint-based restrictions are unconstitutional.

You can’t allow one group to put up a nativity display but ban the Satanic Temple from putting up Baphomet. The same constitutional principles that protect the Baphomet statue also protect the civic group’s right to put up its nativity scene in the very same plaza. 

Although we don’t yet know if the Satanic Temple and its supporters will put up a third Baphomet statue this year, FIREcommends Concord officials for approving the display in the first place, in line with their constitutional obligations.

For example, in 2017, Boston officials told Harold Shurtleff that he couldn’t raise a  during his event on City Hall Plaza, although the city regularly allowed other outside groups to fly flags of their choosing during events. Shurtleff sued the city, and in 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in and agreed the city violated Shurtleff’s First Amendment rights. 

The city’s initial decision to grant the Satanic Temple a permit for the Baphomet display recognized its First Amendment obligations. In a Facebook , the city explained, “Under the First Amendment and to avoid litigation, the City needed to choose whether to ban all holiday displays installed by other groups, or otherwise, to allow it. After reviewing its legal options, the City ultimately decided to continue the policy of allowing unattended displays at City Plaza during this holiday season and to allow the statue.”

However, some city officials were unhappy with the decision. Notably, Concord Mayor Byron Champlin opposed the permit, explicitly  he would have preferred to risk a lawsuit rather than grant the permit “because I believe the request was made not in the interest of promoting religious equity but in order to drive an anti-religious agenda.” 

Even as city officials explained why they had to approve the Satanic Temple’s request, they also said they planned to review the permit policy for unattended displays next year. 

That left FIREconcerned that Concord may engage in viewpoint discrimination and deny applications in the future. So, we’re calling on city officials to reaffirm their commitment to their constitutional obligations. 

As ��֭����’s letter to the city explains:

Concord may not restrict displays simply because, in its view, they reflect an antagonistic or divisive ideology or perspective. Even if — in fact, especially if — the Satanic Temple put up the display, as Mayor Champlin believes, “in order to drive an anti-religious agenda” or as a “calculated political effort,” rather than to promote “religious equity,” the government may not disfavor “anti-religious” speech. The fact that Concord, or some of those through whom it acts, may believe a display is “a deliberately provocative and disturbing effigy” does not make it any less constitutionally protected, as “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint.”

The letter also highlights a recent Texas case involving holiday displays put up by private groups. In that case, Texas’ governor had the Texas State Preservation Board take down a previously-approved “Bill of Rights nativity” display in which cutouts of several Founding Fathers stood over a Bill of Rights in a manger. This decision violated the Constitution, and years of litigation ensued. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ultimately  that it was “not seriously disputed . . . that the Board’s removal of the exhibit violated the First Amendment.” And the suit ultimately cost Texas and Texans almost $360,000. 

Concord officials should take note of that Texas case when deciding whether to “accept the risk” of a lawsuit by engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Although we don’t yet know if the Satanic Temple and its supporters will put up a third Baphomet statue this year, FIREcommends Concord officials for approving the display in the first place, in line with their constitutional obligations.

Given the controversy surrounding the display, FIREcalls on Concord to affirm that it will continue to fulfill those obligations. After all, handing over the authority to restrict minority viewpoints sets a dangerous precedent.