|
free
speech, or not? 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 the courts decided.
CLASSROOM PROFANITY
Cecilia
Lacks instructed her 11th grade students in Berkeley, Missouri
to write and videotape short plays. Many of the plays, which
dealt with issues such as gang violence, included words such
as fuck, shit, ass, bitch and nigger. The 40-minute video compilation
contained more than 150 of these words. The student-discipline
code bans profanity, but Lacks said she believed the code applied
only to behavior toward others. After the school board fired
her, Lacks sued, arguing that she had been a facilitator for
her students' creative expression and that her rights had been
violated.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld
an appeals court decision that said school employees should "promote
generally acceptable social standards." The lower court
had ruled that "a school district does not violate the First
Amendment when it disciplines a teacher for allowing students
to use profanity repetitously and egregiously in their written
work."
DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?
In
1995 Allstate began a campaign to encourage accident victims
to settle claims against its policyholders without hiring lawyers.
The insurance giant sent a conciliatory letter ("we consider
you our customer") and a flier titled "Do I Need an
Attorney?" The answer, predictably, was not necessarily.
"Before you decide to see an attorney, you may wish to seek
an offer with Allstate," the flier noted, pointing out that
legal fees take up a good portion of any judgment. It cited an
industry study that found people "generally settle their
claims more quickly" if they don't hire counsel. It suggested
that victims who hire counsel insist that the contingency fee
apply only to the money that was more than Allstate's offer before
the lawyer got involved. The campaign was a success. According
to one report, it reduced by nearly ten percent the number of
Allstate settlements in which the claimant hired an attorney.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to several states. In West Virginia,
the state bar association ruled that the flier violated a state
statute against "unauthorized [legal] practice." In
Connecticut, the insurance commissioner ordered Allstate to stop
distributing the flier, citing a 1997 law that makes it illegal
to "discourage the retention of an attorney" in cases
involving injury or death. In Pennsylvania, the attorney general
sued Allstate, saying the flier violated unfair-trade and consumer
protection laws. Under pressure from trial lawyers, the New York
attorney general told Allstate to reword the flier, stop using
the word customer and pay $15,000 in administrative costs. State
officials in Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas also
pressured the company to make changes.
NEO-NAZIS ON PARADE
Richard
Barrett, head of the Mississippi-based Nationalist Movement,
travels the country to warn against the "Mexicanization,
Africanization and homosexualization" of America. In 1994
he applied for a permit to parade down West Broadway in South
Boston. He said he and 300 "pro-majority" supporters
wanted to follow part of the route of the annual St. Patrick's
Day parade, which organizers had canceled rather than allow gays
and lesbians to participate. The city denied Barrett's request,
citing concerns about traffic congestion and public safety during
a busy Saturday afternoon shopping period. The city had approved
Saturday afternoon marches by other groups, but the mayor later
said he had feared violence.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Free speech, according to a federal judge. He struck down the
city's parade permit ordinance, saying it gives officials too
much power to ban marches. After hearing testimony, the judge
concluded that officials denied Barrett's permit not because
of congestion or public safety but because they disagreed with
the "nature and content of the Nationalist Movement's message."
He added that Boston officials had "behaved like a latter-day
Watch and Ward Society, guarding against offensive political
opinion," but noted the irony that "much of the law
that protects Barrett's rights developed as a result of the courage
of the pioneers of the civil rights movement." The court
ordered the city to pay Barrett $700 in damages, and his attorneys
$51,000 in fees.
ANTIGAY REMARKS
In
1992, San Francisco mayor Frank Jordan appointed the Reverend
Eugene Lumpkin (pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church) to the
city's Human Rights Commission. The following year Lumpkin told
a newspaper reporter, "It's sad that people have AIDS and
what have you, but it says right here in scripture that the homosexual
lifestyle is an abomination against God." Two weeks later,
on a television talk show, the pastor refused to disavow an Old
Testament passage that says a man who has sex with another man
should be stoned to death. That same day, the mayor fired Lumpkin,
saying the pastor had "crossed the line from belief to behavior
to advocacy" and "implied that he condoned physical
harm." Lumpkin took his case to federal court, saying that
the First Amendment gave him the right to express his religious
beliefs.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to a federal court. While Lumpkin
had the right to express his views, "the First Amendment
does not assure him job security when he preaches homophobia"
while serving as an ambassador for human rights. The U.S. Supreme
Court agreed.
INTERSTATE SEX
Robert
Thomas and his wife, Carleen, operated a lucrative online pornography
business, the Amateur Action Bulletin Board System, from their
home in Milpitas, California. For $55 every six months, adult
subscribers received a password that allowed them to download
any of thousands of images from the Thomases' computers. The
couple promoted Amateur Action as "the nastiest place on
earth" and, like carnival barkers, affixed graphic descriptions
to each image. The board's images included standard hard-core
fare, such as oral sex and come shots, along with bestiality,
sadomasochism and implied incest. Robert Thomas said he scanned
the photos from porn magazines purchased at adult bookstores
in San Francisco. The Thomases also sold fetish videos, some
of which featured urination, enemas and simulated rape.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to the Supreme Court. It upheld the
Thomases' convictions for distributing obscene materials across
state lines. Robert Thomas received a 37-month sentence, his
wife 30 months. The couple was arrested after a postal inspector
in Memphis joined the bulletin board under a fake name, downloaded
images and ordered videos. He also mailed Robert Thomas a package
of "action magazines" and "unusual stuff"
that was actually government-seized kiddie porn. Ten minutes
after the package was delivered, police raided the couple's home
and seized their computers. In Utah, meanwhile, undercover agents
downloaded 16 nude and seminude images they said depicted minors
and to which the Thomases had affixed explicit descriptions.
Robert Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of distributing child
porn (15 other counts were dropped) and received a 26-month sentence
that ran concurrently with the Memphis judgment.
ANTI-ABORTION ADS
Christ's
Bride Ministries of McLean, Virginia purchased advertising space
at public transit stations in Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington,
D.C. Its posters claimed that "women who choose abortion
suffer more and deadlier breast cancer" and included a tollfree
phone number for a group called the American Rights Coalition.
A federal health official complained to the D.C. transit authority
that the ad was "misleading" and "unduly alarming"
and "does not accurately reflect the weight of the scientific
literature." After learning of the health official's comments,
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority immediately
removed the posters, expressing concerns about their accuracy.
The ministry cried foul, saying it had a First Amendment right
to display the ads.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Free speech, according to a federal court. It ruled that advertising
space within transit stations is a public forum, and that Septa
had violated the ministry's rights because it had no consistent
policy to regulate ad content and had allowed controversial campaigns
in the past. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
GROTESQUE ART
Cartoonist
Mike Diana distributed a photocopied zine called Boiled Angel.
His work deals with ugly topics such as religious hypocrisy,
violence and abusive parents. Diana's publication included caricatures
of priests sodomizing children, deformed humans with monster-like
genitalia and women being raped and brutalized, among other grotesque
images. It also featured letters and fiction by convicted killers
and a 12-step list titled "How to Be a Successful Serial
Killer." Diana distributed his zine by mail order and unwittingly
fulfilled a request made by an undercover cop.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to a jury in Pinellas County that
convicted Diana of distributing and advertising obscene drawings.
The cartoonist was imprisoned following the verdict, and four
days later, the judge sentenced him to three years' probation
and fined him $3000 and 1248 hours of community service. The
judge also told Diana that he could not draw during his probation,
even for his own enjoyment. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to
hear Diana's appeal. According to the ACLU, Diana "is the
only cartoonist in America known to have been jailed on an obscenity
charge, and appears to be the only artist in any medium in America
who is prohibited from freely engaging in artistic expression
in the privacy of his own home."
SAFER SEX, TELEVISED
Gareth
Rees hosted a monthly live cable access show in Austin, Texas
on which he discussed safer sex and other issues of gay life.
During an episode of Infosex that aired at midnight, Rees took
calls from viewers about "using sexual fantasies to your
advantage." Shortly before two a.m., he introduced a threeminute
clip from Midnight Snack, an explicit safer-sex video produced
by the Gay Men's Health Crisis Center of New York. The clip showed
a man masturbating and two men engaging in oral sex using a condom.
Rees said the video demonstrated that sex does not have to include
intercourse, and that safer sex can be erotic. "Hopefully
we can be mature about what I showed," he told viewers.
The next day, the county prosecutor said he had received about
25 complaints about the segment.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. A jury
found Rees and the show's producer, Terrell Diane Johnson, each
guilty of a misdemeanor obscenity charge, and the high court
upheld the convictions. Rees and Johnson were each sentenced
to a year's probation and 200 hours of community service.
WANTED POSTERS
Pro-life
activists distributed Wanted posters featuring photos of abortion
providers. The posters offered a $5000 reward for "information
leading to arrest, conviction and revocation of license"
of the doctors and provided their home addresses. Meanwhile,
a website known as the Nuremberg Files called for the "baby
butchers" to be put on trial for crimes against humanity
and included personal information such as the doctors' addresses
and the names of their children. The site also indicated which
providers had been murdered by placing a line through their names.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to a federal jury in Portland, Oregon.
The Supreme Court has held that speech that is likely to cause
"imminent lawless action" can be restricted; the Portland
jurors were asked to decide if a reasonable person would construe
the posters and site as violating a 1994 law that prohibits the
use of force or threats against abortion clinic employees and
patients. The defense argued that abortion providers have been
scorned for years and that the posters and site, while provocative,
were not enough to make someone act violently. The jury awarded
a group of doctors and the local chapter of Planned Parenthood
$107 million in damages.
ARTISTS' RIGHTS
Street
artists in New York City's Soho neighborhood often sell original
paintings, sculptures and carvings on public sidewalks. After
residents and merchants complained about pedestrian traffic jams,
police began arresting artists who did not have vendor licenses.
The artists said the general vending statute violates their First
Amendment rights, especially since it allows sidewalk merchants
to sell books, magazines and pamphlets without obtaining a permit.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Free speech, according to a federal court, which said that licensing
street artists is unconstitutional. Nine months later, however,
after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling, the city parks
department began ticketing unlicensed artists outside the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. The city argued that the earlier ruling does not
apply because the museum plaza is park land, not a public street.
A federal judge agreed. Many artists currently sell art on the
street without permits as the case makes it way through the courts.
A LONE PICKETER
In
1995 John Muldoon hired attorney Kevin Hendrickson to represent
him in a probate case. Muldoon was awarded about $130,000. Hendrickson
later told reporters that Muldoon had agreed to pay a $20,000
fee and that he allowed his client to make monthly installments
for two years with no money down. Eighteen months later, Muldoon
appeared in front of Hendrickson's office with a hot-pink posterboard
that read "Unfair Legal Fees Charged." The 60-year-old
former car salesman picketed from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. and again
from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. for five days, until Hendrickson took him
to court.
Free
speech, or not free speech?
VERDICT:
Not free speech, according to a circuit court judge. Cynthia
Cox ruled that Muldoon could not protest, picket or come within
500 feet of Hendrickson's firm, which is next to the courthouse,
because he was causing the attorney "irreparable harm."
She also ordered Muldoon not to make false statements about Hendrickson
(the lawyer claimed Muldoon's placard libeled him) or draw any
adverse attention to the attorney's offices. Hendrickson said
Muldoon's picketing amounted to blackmail. "Picketing for
an unlawful purpose is not protected speech," he said. "This
is not an issue of freedom of speech."
By
Chip Rowe. This article first appeared in Playboy, August 1999.
©
1999
Playboy. Reproduced by permission.
See
also: Free Speech, or Not? Part 2
Links:
Free Expression News (site); The Real First Amendment? (site)
Copyright
© 1994-2011 cc Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
Legal
notice
Thank
you for visiting ChipRowe.com. Comments?
|