PORTLAND, Ore. — A street preacher ejected from events in downtown Portland has won his free-speech lawsuit against the city.

On Feb. 24, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Edward Gathright, an evangelical Christian who preaches outdoors, including at privately sponsored events at Tom McCall Waterfront Park and Pioneer Courthouse Square.

Gathright acknowledged that he upset women when he called them "Jezebels" and "daughters of Babylon." He contended that his rights were violated when he was tossed out of events at the waterfront park and the courthouse square.

A unanimous three-judge panel agreed in Gathright v. City of Portland. The 9th Circuit panel said the city gave groups that held events at city parks too much discretion to eject people. The decision upheld a 2004 lower court ruling.

Since then, the city has changed its park ordinance in a way that Gathright's attorney, Herbert G. Grey, says complies with the First Amendment for the most part.

Grey says the next step is for a jury to decide whether the city should pay damages to his client.

The 9th Circuit judges described the Gathright case as "the intersection of two First Amendment rights: on the one hand, the classic right of an individual to speak in the town square; on the other hand, the interest organizations have in not being compelled to communicate messages not of their choosing."

In 2001 and 2002, Gathright was removed from the Northwest Tibetan Cultural Association's "Pathways to Peace Welcoming Festival," two gay-pride festivals, an AIDS walk, an Italian fiesta and the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Gathright sued Portland and Pioneer Courthouse Square in 2003, saying it was unconstitutional to eject him from a public place because the organizers of an event disliked the content of his speech.

City officials responded that groups that get permits have a right to toss people out in order to control the message of their event.

"Gathright may be a gadfly to those with views contrary to his own," the judges wrote. "But First Amendment jurisprudence is clear that the way to oppose offensive speech is by more speech, not censorship, enforced silence or eviction from legitimately occupied public space."