Freedom of Speech

by

You don’t have a right to a job!

Give me a freakin’ break.

National Bigot Kim Davis was playing the martyr card again today, complaining that she had to choose between “her conscience and freedom” because gosh darn it, the evil government that she works for wants to make her do her job.

Well, no, Ms. Bigot — your choice is not between “your conscience and freedom”.  It’s between your job and freedom. If you don’t want to do your job, just quit already.

A sign recently erected in Kim Davis' town

A sign recently erected in Kim Davis’ town

This is the same old argument we see time and time again, always by people who have no understanding of their Constitutional rights. Your right to have an opinion doesn’t mean you have the right to force it on everyone else, nor does it mean you are protected from the consequences of that opinion.

Just since I started this blog a few years ago, this issue has come up more than once.

There was that bank teller (also from Kentucky) that complained that her rights were violated when she was fired after she kept preaching to customers, despite being told to stop by her boss.

And that CEO from Mozilla who whined that he was being wrongly fired for fighting against gay marriage while his business was actively anti-discrimination.

And the conservative pundist Charles Krauthamer, who doesn’t understand that he doesn’t have the right to have his column printed in the paper.

And “actor” Rob Schneider who lost his job as an insurance spokesman after dissing vaccinations (which insurance companies like).

In each of these situations, people wrongly thought that losing their jobs because of what they said meant their freedom of speech was violated. You don’t have the right to a specific job! If your speech, religion, or actions stand in the way of you doing your job, then you’re not being “punished” for your opinions — you’re being punished for not doing your freakin’ job.

by

Liberals are not trying to ban the Confederate flag

Sure, we hate it. It stands for treason, injustice, and slavery. Anyone who flies that flag is either a bigot, an asshole who likes trolling people, or willfully ignorant of what that flag means to people.

That flag does not belong on public property, nor should public funds ever be used to display it (except perhaps in a museum). There is indeed a movement to prohibit it from being displayed on government property.flagthatmattered

But banning it completely would clearly violate the 1st Amendment.

People have the right to hold unpopular positions. They have the right to be obnoxious and insulting. They can fly that flag on their own property all they want, put it on their car, wave it in the air while they walk down the street.

That doesn’t mean we can’t object. That doesn’t mean we can’t protest it and try to encourage people not to support the anti-American Racist Slaver Treason Flag. We can refuse to deal with people who fly it, boycott businesses that support it, and protest using our 1st Amendment rights, too.

There are always extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. There are indeed liberals who don’t understand what “freedom of speech” means who want to ban the flag and force every statue of a Confederate soldier down to the ground. Oh, and statues of Columbus, too. And Andrew Jackson. And anyone else who doesn’t agree with them 100% … because that’s what extremists want — you either agree with them completely or you’re the enemy.

Don’t paint everyone with the same brush, though. Liberals hate that flag and all it stands for and wish for no one to ever fly it again — but a true liberal also loves freedom of speech and is against censorship.

by

No, no… the Muslims have a point

The Saudi Arabia-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation is planning to sue the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo following its publication of a front cover depicting the Prophet Mohamed.

“It’s hate speech,” they argue. And they have a point.FRANCE-ATTACKS-CHARLIE-HEBDO-MEDIA-FRONTPAGE

You see, in most of Europe,”freedom of speech” is limited.  They don’t have a 1st Amendment over there, after all. Certain types of speech are illegal, such as denying the holocaust. Nazi symbols are prohibited.  In France, there is a law prohibiting speech that is “defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap.”

What a terrible law.

But the Muslims have a point. If you are banning hate speech, you need to ban all hate speech. You can’t make it illegal for anyone to say something bad about Jews while allowing Charlie Hedbo to insult Muslims with every issue.

My hope is that this lawsuit will point out the hypocrisy of any law that punishes speech.

We have to protect speech we hate.  We have to protect speech that is insulting.

Speech everyone agrees with doesn’t need protecting.

by

Rob Schneider can say whatever idiocy he wants to

How many times do we have to say this?  The First Amendment does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

Friend and scientist Yvette d’Entremont (read her guest blog here!) started a new Facebook page called “Science Babe” a month ago.  Recently, she pointed out that “actor” Rob Schneider was doing insurance company commercials while arguing against vaccinations. Rob-Schneider_Hollywood_USA Others picked up on this and soon Schnedier was fired as a spokesman, because insurance companies like vaccinations — they save lives and save insurance companies lots of money.

Of course, people who do not understand how the Constitution works are screaming that his rights were violated and blah blah blah.  It happens every time some celebrity loses their endorsement or, as I blogged about recently, when a bank teller was fired for lecturing customers about her religion during worktime.

You have every right to say whatever the hell you want to about vaccines.  You can spout nonsense about the world being flat if you want to.  No one has the right to stop you from doing that.  In fact, Schneider can continue to spout his idiocy forever if he so chooses.

What you don’t have is the right to a job or a platform for your speech.  A newspaper doesn’t have to print your opinion.  A TV show can fire you if you are saying things that they disagree with (especially if it hurts their ratings).   A school can fire you as a science teacher if you’re trying to teach your students creationism.   Your freedom of speech is not violated in any of those incidences.  You can continue to say whatever you want, just not with an audience provided by your former employer.

By the way, I’m thrilled for Yvette.    We first met at a convention where we were both guests on a panel about science and how it is used and abused in court cases.   According to various anti-vaccination blogs, she’s now part of the “pro-vaccine lobby”.  Not bad for a Science Babe.

by

No, your freedom of speech was not violated

Once more, a contingent of People Who Don’t Understand The Constitution are complaining because it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

Not surprisingly, it’s mostly religious folks, who also don’t understand the Bible either.

This time, it’s a woman who was fired from her job, violating her Freedom of Speech!  Or so she says.Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

A Kentucky bank teller is complaining that her 1st Amendment rights were violated because she was fired for saying “Have a blessed day” to her customers.  She also criticized patrons for “taking the Lord’s name in vain” and talked to people about “salvation”.

She was told by her boss to stop that, but she didn’t, because Jeebus demands her to do so or something.   And now she’s fired.  And whining that her speech and religious rights have been violated.

Well, no.  As anyone who understands the first thing about freedoms will tell you.   An employer has the right to tell their employees not to discuss religion, or politics, or anything of the sort with the customers, in the same way they can tell you to not wear boxing shorts and tank tops to work.

I certainly wouldn’t want to go to a bank and have the teller tell me “All praise to C’thulu” as I left. Or “Be sure to vote for my candidate!” or “Remember: oral sex is a sin.”

There’s a place for everything, and that is not the place.  It’s a business decision.

If the business fired her simply for being a Christian, she would have a wonderful case, because her rights were clearly being violated.  For that matter, if the bank fired her for saying any of those things on her own time when she wasn’t working, then I would happily take her case and fight against such a clear violation.  But reasonable work rules such as “Don’t piss off our customers” don’t get that kind of protection.

And let’s once more make it clear, since this is one of the biggest mistakes People Who Don’t Understand The Constitution make:  The 1st Amendment prevents the government from taking away your freedom of speech.  It does not mean that you have the right to say whatever you want at any time and not take criticism for it or never have to face the consequences.

 

 

 

by

We will force you to salute the flag — for freedom!

Last fall, I blogged about a Florida teacher who was suspended for forcing her students to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Texas doesn’t stand for that kind of thing.  They’ve suspended the kid for refusing to stand.  Pledge-of-Allegiance

(Insert comic German accent) “You vill obey und salute the government. Ve do not appreciate individual thought here!”

Of what use is a forced pledge? If someone forces you to say something against your will, what’s the point? How is it meaningful? Does the irony not hit people? “We are forcing you to pledge against your will — for freedom!!!”

The United States Supreme Court held that no one could be forced to say the pledge over fifty years ago in a case involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who persuasively argued that such a pledge violated their religious beliefs concerning worshiping objects or something. It has been the law of the land ever since.  Here’s what the court said:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

But Texas!

Say the pledge because you mean it, and not because you have to. That’s true patriotism.

by

“Freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom to be free of the consequences”

Mozilla’s CEO Brendan Eich resigned after complaints that he was a supporter of the anti-gay marriage campaign, and now certain conservatives are in an uproar.

You see, when they boycott businesses and TV shows they believe have anti-Christian messages, they are exercising their free speech in a totally American and patriotic way.  But when others do it against issues they support, they are suppressing anti-Christian ideals and trying to silence people in the same way the Nazis did.   boycott

I mean, it’s only logical, right?

Look, this guy has every right to his opinion.  What he doesn’t have is the right to the job.

As the NY Times pointed out:

Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.  When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.

This company has a policy that supports gay rights, and their guy in charge is working against that policy. It hurts the business’ image with the public, and therefore he has made himself unqualified for the position.

Suppose he had supported the KKK or some other group whose main purpose it was to deny rights to others?  Do you think the company should just look the other way, knowing it would hurt their business and their reputation?

Part of the problem too is that equality for gays and lesbian is indeed a new issue, and hard to understand for some people.  Most who are against it are not necessarily evil or mean, just ignorant or unwilling to take that step yet.  They don’t see themselves as bigots.

However, this was also what it was like at the start of the civil rights movement in the 60s.  Many whites just could not conceive of equality with blacks, and some churches even preached that equality was against God’s will — therefore to allow equality meant you were doing the Devil’s work.  Doesn’t that sound like what some who are against gay marriage are saying these days?

Bigotry is objective.  Are you in favor of denying rights to people over things they do not control?  You’re a bigot.  Sorry if that makes you angry, but that’s the definition, no matter how you may justify it to yourself.

A company has the right to say “We don’t hire bigots.”

I cannot deny that there is a “slippery slope” argument to be made here, where a company can fire you simply because you have a political position they don’t like.  I hold that there is a difference when (a) you are the CEO or someone who speaks for the company and represents its image;  and (b) when your position specifically says “I will be treating some of our employees as second-class citizens and advocating discriminating against them.”    In a sense, his position on that issue directly affects his job, in the same way a nun could be fired for saying “I don’t believe in God.”

This is not the same as an employee saying “I dislike Obama.”  Or even a low level employee who has no control over the company saying “I am against gay marriage.”  I agree that firing someone for those things would be absolutely wrong.

by

Freedom of Screech

“You’re violating my freedom of speech!”

This statement is often heard from people who have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about.

The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from taking away your freedom of speech.  That’s why they can’t pass a law censoring your views or punishing you for speaking your mind. There is absolutely no way an individual citizen can take away your 1st Amendment rights. Only the government can do that.

So you have freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean you have the right to spout out whatever you want without being criticized.

The people who argue this usually are just upset that someone has disagreed with them.  Well, sorry, my freedom of speech means that I can do that, too, you know.

This came up today when some conservatives recited the inane “freedom of speech” mantra after liberals were writing to the Washington Post to complain about Charles Krauthammer’s latest column.post  You see, Charlie boy  was complaining about climate change — which he denies — and whining that people were trying to silence the dissenters.  When people who understand science complained and suggested that having him say such stupid things in a respected newspaper was like having an Flat Earther pen an op-ed column — and that maybe it might be a good idea for the Washington Post to not print lies about climate change — this was seen as proof of what Charlie said.  See?  They want to violate his freedom of speech!

Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an audience.  You don’t have the right to be in the Washington Post.  People have the right to complain about your column, and if you think that is wrong, then you clearly don’t understand what freedom of speech is about in the slightest.

Somehow, conservatives who boycott advertisers, yell at politicians to prevent them from speaking, and fight to censor books from school libraries that teach evil things like science never seem to think that they are “violating someone’s freedom of speech” do they?

by

Strict Scrutiny (part three): 1st Amendment Exceptions

The 1st Amendment is written about as clear and concise as can be.  No exceptions are provided:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s five really important rights all tucked into one small sentence. Freedom of Speech Freedom to establish a religion;  freedom to exercise your religion;  freedom of speech;  freedom of the press;  freedom to protest.

Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution strictly and argue that one must never interpret the document or read something into it that isn’t there.

Let’s take Freedom of Speech as an example.  Clear as day, right?  No interpretation needed.  No exceptions are allowed.

Here’s where we pause for laughter.

There are lots of exceptions to your right to free speech, and these are exceptions that just about everyone will agree are a good idea.  Most of these exceptions existed when the Constitution was written.  For example:

Time, Place, and Manner.  Your right to speech can be limited as to when and how you can exercise it.  You can’t stand in the middle of a courtroom during a trial and give a speech about taxation.  You can’t have a rally at 3 am using loudspeakers.  You can’t disrupt a military funeral claiming that “God hates fags.”  The time, place, and manner of your speech can be regulated.

Clear and Present Danger.  You have the right to speak out against the government, but if you’re inciting a riot, you can be stopped and you can’t claim they are violating your right to speak.  (It’s not the speech they are stopping, after all, it’s the violence you are encouraging.)

Defamation.  Libel and slander are not protected.  You cannot commit these crimes and then claim, in your defense, that the 1st amendment protects you.

Obscenity.  Obscene works are not protected, although there are very few cases about obscenity these days because of the proliferation of adult websites.  Still, the exception is there.  This is different from Child Pornography.  Things that would not be considered obscene if it involved adults would still be prohibited if children are involved.   In a sense, when you are convicted of child pornography, it’s because you are conspiring in the assault on the child.  (That’s the key — artwork featuring children is not prohibited, for instance, although I certainly wouldn’t want to have anything to do with you if that was the kind of thing you enjoyed.)

Commercial speech.  Advertisements can be regulated.  You can be punished for making false claims about your product and you can’t claim in your defense that your 1st amendment rights were violated.

Reasonable governmental interests.  You can’t reveal government secrets that would place our agents or troops in danger.  You don’t have absolute freedom to publish whatever you want in a school newspaper.  Radio and television airwaves can be regulated.  If you’re a government employee, you may be limited in what you can say about politics.  Your speech can be limited when you are in the military or in jail.  The government can restrict what lawyers can say.  (Seriously, we can be punished for violating our ethical requirements by revealing confidential information, for instance.)

Anyway, I could spend an entire semester on these exceptions (and did, when I was in law school).

And this is just for the Freedom of Speech part of the 1st Amendment.  I haven’t even mentioned the other rights in the 1st, all of which have exceptions.

“But wait,” you say.  “What about governmental secrets that don’t place anyone in danger, like in Snowden’s case?  What about restrictions on time, place and manner that are unreasonable?  What if I disagree with the government as to what is obscene?”

Aha.  Now you see why we need courts and lawyers.  Every case is different, and there are many shades of gray in the law.  What applies in one case may not in the next.

And that is why you must laugh at any Constitutional fundamentalist who proclaims that there is one right answer for every circumstance and that the Constitution does not need any interpretation.

Part four next:  If there are this many exceptions to just one part of the clearly-worded 1st amendment, why can’t there be exceptions to the poorly-worded 2nd amendment (especially since it’s the only amendment that contains the words “well-regulated”?)

Click here to read part one and start at the beginning.

 

by

Westboro Baptist Church members arrested, 1st amendment be damned

Look, I hate the Westboro Baptist Church idiots as much as anyone. Why they think their religion teaches them to preach hatred is beyond me.

But when people are posting things like this, I have to (sadly) disagree:

So Westboro “Baptist Church” showed up here in Texas at the memorial service in West for the first responders who lost their lives in the explosion. The Chief of Police promptly had all 20 or so of them arrested and put into holding cells (all the men in one and all the women in another) When they told him he couldn’t do that, he let them know HE could. Since he hadn’t officially charged them, he could hold them for 24 hours before he had to charge them or let them go! (plenty of time to hold the memorial service). I guess Westboro didn’t think it through too well… This is Texas. As quickly as we fry people down here, did they really think they would be allowed to show that kind of disrespect?? Their photos were also released to the other small towns surrounding West, where services would be denied to them. Sometimes you just have to admire the way we do things down here in Texas!

Sam_Patriotic_Eagle_American_Flag-02md

Nothing to admire here folks, just move along.

We are abandoning what it means to be an American in our blind hatred of these idiots.

While it is perfectly legal to have restrictions which are not “content based” (such as “No public protests within 500 yards of a funeral” or “No protests or speeches allowed in courtrooms while a trial is in progress”) it appears that is not the case here. The people are being arrested (assuming the above is true — I haven’t found confirmation yet) for the content of their speech. It’s what they are saying which is being punished and censored. If they had all shown up with signs saying “We support our heroes” no one would have said a word.

And that’s the problem.

The 1st amendment is meaningless if it doesn’t protect speech we hate. Speech we all agree with doesn’t need protecting.

So while I hate these Westboro cretins, I love the Constitution more. And therefore, they have to be allowed to protest.