Will it become a thing here in the US where police arrest people for being openly Jewish?

The 9th circuit court (now less obnoxious thanks to Trump appointees) ruled against Seattle a similar issue.

I am sure everyone has heard by now that a London police officer threatened to arrest a Jewish man who had just left his synagogue with several other Jewish worshippers. They were still wearing their skullcaps and crossing the street when they came across an antisemite/pro-Hamas rally being held. The police (who were overseeing the rally) told them that being openly Jewish in front of these protesters was provocative and that they would be arrested if they didn't take off their caps and leave. The London police have taken a lot of heat for the incident and apologized for the wording, while defending the concept of the action. They cited examples where people "opposed to the protests" would come around these events filming themselves as a means to work up a reaction. They deemed these people to be provocateurs who are "inviting a response".

This leads me to a relative issue that recently took place here in Seattle, where a man named Meinecke was arrested twice for reading a bible in a public park during protests for abortion rights and LGBTQ. The man was doing what is largely known as a "counterprotest" which is apparently legal or not depending on your view and where you are at. In many areas of Seattle, Abortion and LGBTQ are the religions of choice and reading the bible in public is considered indecent.

At the first event the man was openly assaulted, and his bible was taken away by protesters. At one point, the mob picked him up and physically removed him from the park, lifting him and moving him and then dropping him on pavement. The mob took one of his shoes and continued to assault him, all in front of Seattle police. The police finally decided to intervene, but their intervention was to tell the man to either leave (as claimed by the man) or to move to the other side of the street (as claimed by the police). When the one shoed man refused, the police arrested him but did not book him.

Two days later, Meinecke was at another rally for LGBTQ rights. At this point, the protesters gathered around him. Dancing around him, barking like dogs, and dousing him with water. He simply ignored them. When the protesters started to escalate their taunts and assaults on the man, the police once again came to demand that Meinecke leave because he was posing a risk to public safety. When he refused, they arrested him, this time booking him for obstruction.

Bottom line: Seattle got sued and at this point the process just went to the ninth circuit court, who ruled in favor of the bible reading man.

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…

“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….

That has to be a slap in the face for the city of Seattle and the woke police department. Not only were they told that they were wrong to ask the man to leave, but that it was also their responsibility to keep him safe from the crowd, not the other way around. They were also told by the court that they arrested the wrong person, and that they actually should have arrested those who assaulted Meinecke. Go figure. Will anyone learn anything from this? I doubt it. The police should, but probably will not arrest liberal protesters who assault conservative counter protesters. It is simply not in Seattle's nature. I hope I am wrong, but that seems unlikely.

The bigger problem is that children are being taught that what the police did was right, that preventing others from speaking is free speech, and that authorities (whether it be school administrators, workplace human resources, or police officers) are responsible to make sure they are not exposed to speech that offends them. The eventual clash with these troubled teachings and the actual law will come to a head here soon. It may already be starting.