![]() |
free speech, or not? II 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 the First Amendment. Simple, right? Not always. Consider each of the following free speech cases. After you cast your vote, I'll tell you what those in power decided. GO, TEAM VERDICT: Not free speech. After officials at his school refused to allow the fourth grader to attend the party, the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union sued on Rocky's behalf. Administrators claimed they had not barred Rocky because of his jersey but as punishment for disruptive behavior in the past. (His father claims this behavior included Rocky's refusal to cover his jersey for a photo in which students had been told to wear Vikings colors, and coloring a football player green and gold instead of the required purple and gold in an assignment.) A federal judge ruled that there is no constitutional right for a nine-year-old to wear a Packers jersey to school because the anti-Green Bay policy doesn't affect the quality of his education. PICKING A FIGHT VERDICT: Not free speech, according to a Manhattan judge. Police arrested Harvey for disorderly conduct. His lawyer argued that a person can't be punished for expressing ideas simply because others don't want to hear them. The New York Civil Liberties Union suggested that rather than arrest Harvey, the police should have protected him. The judge refused to dismiss the charge, ruling that Harvey knew his words would cause "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm." (The district attorney later dropped the charge.) Two weeks earlier another Manhattan judge heard a case in which five men had been arrested near Times Square for allegedly yelling: "It's good that the World Trade Center was bombed. More cops and firemen should have died! More bombs should have been dropped and more people should have been killed!" The judge said the rant was not protected speech because it was "plainly intended to incite" passersby. The DA dropped the most serious of the charges. TATTOO YOU VERDICT: Not free speech. South Carolina is one of two states (the other is Oklahoma) that bans anyone but a physician from giving tattoos, and then only during reconstructive or cosmetic surgery. Police arrested White after a TV station aired footage of him inking a tattoo. A judge sentenced the artist to five years' probation and fined him $500. White then appealed to the state supreme court, which ruled against him. It stated that free speech applies only to "nonhuman" canvases and that tattooing "is not sufficiently communicative." CHILD SEX VERDICT: Free speech, according to the university. Although outraged state legislators voted to withdraw $100,000 in funding, the school defended Mirkin's right to express unorthodox views. "We got out of the Dark Ages when we said we could challenge belief," its chancellor said. The lawmaker who led the charge to punish the school responded that Mirkin "doesn't have a right to espouse his illegal views on the taxpayer dime." GANG ADVICE VERDICT: Free speech. When prosecutors charged several Bratz members with felonies, they also indicted McCoy for "promoting, furthering or assisting criminal conduct by a gang." He was convicted, and a judge sentenced him to 15 years. On appeal, McCoy's lawyers argued that it's not against the law to express your opinion about how an organization even an illegal one should be run. A federal appeals court reversed the conviction, which it said "strays dangerously close to guilt by association." It also cited a lower court ruling that had noted, "While it may have been incredibly stupid for McCoy to have offered his opinions to a group of teenage gangster wannabes, the Constitution protects even stupid speech." ABORTION CAM VERDICT: Free speech, for now. Horsley says he's a journalist documenting an important social issue and notes the photos are taken from public sidewalks (often with zoom lenses). He also runs the Nuremberg Files, a site that lists the names, addresses and other personal details of physicians who perform abortions. In May 2002 a federal appeals court ruled that the Nuremberg Files and other activities designed to intimidate doctors are not protected speech. LIVE SEX VERDICT: Not free speech. Undercover cops arrested the women and the club's owner, who was convicted of promoting unlawful sexual conduct. A state appeals court upheld his conviction. It wrote, "The historical record establishes that the framers of the Oregon Constitution (adopted in 1859) did not understand free expression to provide protection against regulation of public sexual intercourse and masturbation." GOD BLESS VERDICT: Not free speech. Because it is a public school, Ridgewood officials felt the slogan violated the First Amendment's restriction on government endorsement of religion. They told the yearbook staff to use a different design or substitute the words "Proud to Be an American." Marissa and her parents sued, arguing that God Bless America is a neutral sentiment such as One Nation Under God or In God We Trust. A federal judge ruled against them. In a similar case, a federal court in San Francisco sided with an atheist parent who argued that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The original pledge did not contain "under God"; Congress added it in 1954. RAP LYRICS VERDICT: Not free speech. Jones claims he told Arnold, "Don't take this serious." She took the lyrics to the principal, who called police. Jones apologized to Arnold, then explained in a written statement: "I got mad and wrote a letter to express myself. It was pretty gruesome." The state supreme court upheld his conviction for making a terroristic threat. KITTY PORN VERDICT: Not free speech, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which asked the Justice Department to prosecute Biderman under a law that makes it a felony to distribute depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain. The feds declined, and the site still archives the video. RISQUE DRIVING VERDICT: Free speech, according to a federal court. Three years after the DMV gave Lewis the plates, it recalled them. Lewis went to court and won them back. In response, the state banned plates that could be considered "inflammatory or contrary to public policy." Citing the law, the DMV again recalled Lewis' plates. But the federal court ruled that the statute gave DMV officials too much discretion and that the potential reactions of other drivers wasn't enough to stifle Lewis' right to look like an asshole. Lewis says any plate should be OK "so long as it isn't a four-letter word or KILL." ANARCHY CLUB VERDICT: Not free speech. The principal suspended Sierra for three days for bringing the fliers to school. When she returned from the suspension wearing her shirt, he suspended her again. Later, members of the school board lectured the teenager. "This school system will not support a club that promotes overthrowing the government," one said. Added another, "You must not have enough to do." Most students did not support Sierra. One told her, "If you don't love this country, then fucking leave." Others elbowed or shoved her. The principal claimed some students needed counseling after seeing the shirt, and board members said these reactions showed that Sierra's views were disruptive. The state supreme court refused to hear her appeal. Concerned for her safety, she began home schooling. [Update: In July 2002, a local jury said the principal had been wrong to prevent Katie from forming an anarchy club but said it was OK to suspend her for wearing the shirt. The ACLU has appealed that part of the verdict to the state Supreme Court.] VIOLENT GAMES VERDICT: Not free speech, according to a federal judge. Two years ago the St. Louis County Council made it illegal for anyone to "sell, rent, make available or permit the free play of violent video games to minors without a parent or guardian's consent." An industry group challenged the law, citing the First Amendment. The judge reviewed four video games but said he found "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to speech." CONVERTING GAYS VERDICT: Free speech. Three religious groups sued, alleging the board had violated the First Amendment by officially condemning their beliefs and hampering the groups' ability to speak out against homosexuality. The city's attorney countered that "cities have a right to express their views about human rights just like anyone else." A federal court ruled for the city. PRISONER MAIL VERDICT: Not free speech. Prison officials punished Murphy for insolence and interference with due process hearings. He sued, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officials have a right to censor correspondence between inmates even if it contains legal advice. "In the First Amendment context, some rights are simply inconsistent with the status of a prisoner," it said. GRADUATION PRAYER VERDICT: Not free speech. After a parent sued, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that official prayers at public school functions violate the First Amendment restriction on state sponsorship of religion. Many schools responded by dropping prayers from their graduation ceremonies. In Duval County, Florida the board allows seniors to elect a classmate to speak for two minutes with no restrictions. Many students campaign for the spot promising to recite a prayer. A federal court upheld the policy. DVD TECH VERDICT: Not free speech in some cases, free speech in others. The judge ordered 2600 to remove its DeCSS hyperlinks. But because his ruling applied to "active" links, 2600 had only to make them inactive. Practically, this means visitors can still access 2600's site to find DeCSS but now must cut-and-paste the web address into their browser. A few months after the ruling, a federal court reversed an order that prohibited a San Francisco man from posting DeCSS on his personal website. His lawyers argued that while the movie industry says the issue at hand is not free speech but piracy, "it has never offered any evidence that the defendant stole, illegally copied or sold anything." HITLER SIGN VERDICT: Too much free speech, according to the city. Officials ticketed the MacFaddens for violating a city ordinance that regulates the size of signs. The MacFaddens sued, saying their religious and political freedoms of expression had been sacrificed. A judge ruled against them. In a similar case in Stillwater, New York, a body shop owner hung a sign that read, "Foreigners Go Home." It drew complaints, but city officials said it didn't violate any laws. DON'T CALL US VERDICT: Not free speech, according to four nonprofits. The National Coalition of Prayer, the Kentucky-Indiana Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Indiana Troopers Association and the Indiana Association of State Police sued to overturn the law, saying it violates their First Amendment right to phone whomever they want. Said Indiana's attorney general: "I don't think the Constitution would require that people be interrupted with the annoying ring of a telephone." In a similar case, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a law in Stratton, Ohio that required anyone who wanted to go door-to-door (Jehovah's Witnesses, political candidates, Girl Scouts, etc.) to get a permit. © 2002 Playboy. Reproduced by permission. Thank you for visiting ChipRowe.com. Comments? |