Exercising Free Speech?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Given some of the comments related to free speech on other threads, I will be interested to see what people think of this…

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_06_07.shtml#1086846148

Anti-American speech:

From a story in the Arizona Republic, May 21, 2004:

Offended citizens and school officials should work together to resolve a politically charged dispute brought on by a teacher who used a school computer system to send out offensive material, a government agency has said. . . . If the parties cannot work out a solution, a lawsuit could be filed against the college district.

“The determination was a wake-up call for the district,” said Jim Lugo, a sophomore at the college. “It’s helped emphasize what the community has been trying to tell the district: They need to step in and make sure nothing like this happens again.”

Walter Kehowski, a faculty member at Glendale Community College, in October 2003 e-mailed to all district employees several Internet links that contained remarks considered to be anti-American. Kehowski posted hundreds of Internet links relating to virulent anti-Americanism, with titles including “Americans Thinks the World Belongs to Them!” and “American Double Standard,” said the government agency in a letter of determination, which spells out the findings of investigators.

The links also included remarks offensive to men and religion, the report said: “‘Why Christianity is Anti-Democratic,’ ‘Why Men Are Oppressors ? Reasons to Strengthen Title IX’ and ‘Patriarchal chickens come home ? but not to roost.’” . . .

A spokesman for Maricopa Community College District stressed that the federal investigation did not prove whether illegal speech occurred. . . . Typically, though, when the federal agency makes a “letter of determination,” investigators have found a reasonable cause to believe that there is enough evidence to find illegal behavior.

“We try to resolve the problem between the parties,” said a regional attorney for the agency. “If they can’t work together, there could be a lawsuit.”

Clorinda Quiroz Lozano, a Phoenix College student, wants school administrators to work out the problem.

“No one should get away with that,” said Lozano, 53, who said she also filed a complaint with the agency against the college district for the incident. “No one. Not for anti-Americanism. We want respect.”

Outrageous, no? Well, I confess that I changed a few details here. Here are excerpts from the actual story:

Latinos and school officials should work together to resolve a racially charged dispute brought on by a teacher who used a school’s computer system to send out offensive material, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said. . . . If the parties cannot work out a solution, a lawsuit could be filed against the college district.

“The determination was a wake-up call for the district,” said Jim Lugo, a sophomore at the college. “It’s helped emphasize what the community has been trying to tell the district: They need to step in and make sure nothing like this happens again.”

Walter Kehowski, a White faculty member at Glendale Community College, in October 2003 e-mailed to all district employees several Internet links that contained remarks considered disparaging to Hispanics. Kehowski posted hundreds of Internet links relating to “racial hatred, intimidation and supremacy,” with titles including “Mexicans Think U.S. Belongs to Them!” and “Mexican Double Standard,” said the EEOC in a letter of determination, which spells out the findings of investigators.

The links also included remarks offensive to women and religion, the report said: “‘Why Islam Hates Democracy,’ ‘Why White (and other) Women Can’t Jump a Facelift for Title IX’ and ‘Multiracial chickens come home ? but not to roost.’” . . .

A spokesman for Maricopa Community College District stressed that the EEOC investigation did not prove whether harassment occurred. . . . Typically, though, when EEOC makes a “letter of determination,” investigators have found a reasonable cause to believe that there is enough evidence to find discrimination.

“We try to resolve the problem between the parties,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC in Phoenix. “If they can’t work together, there could be a lawsuit.”

Clorinda Quiroz Lozano, a Phoenix College student, wants school administrators to work out the problem.

“No one should get away with that,” said Quiroz Lozano, 53, who said she also filed a complaint with the EEOC against the college district for the incident. “No one. Not for harassment. We want respect.”

Yet for First Amendment purposes and academic freedom purposes, anti-American speech is no more and no less protected than “Mexicans Think U.S. Belongs to Them!,” “Mexican Double Standard,” “Why Islam Hates Democracy,” “Why White (and other) Women Can’t Jump a Facelift for Title IX,” and “Multiracial chickens come home ? but not to roost.” If you’re worried about the government agency actions in the modified excerpt (especially if the agency ultimately does sue the college for tolerating speech that some find offensive), and if you think that the agency should have just announced that it has no right to sue over constitutionally protected speech like this, then it seems to me you should think the same about the actual excerpt.

2

There are differences. The US itself is not a minority and does not have laws in place to protect it from hate crimes and racism.

As a non-living entity represented by government the US itself probably doesn’t need the same protections from certain types of speech, even if people find said speech distasteful.

However, I’d guess that misuse of the schools computers for whatever private agenda would be wrong in any case.

3

vroom:

It’s true that there is not a perfect parallel between the U.S. and a group of individuals. However, the First Amendment doesn’t brook subject-matter or viewpoint discrimination, except in certain very limited cases. In this case, you have a juxtaposition of two political opinions, and both are protected by the principle of free speech as defined under the 1st Amendment.

While I know Canada has laws based on the principles you enunciated, the U.S. does not – they would be unconstitutional. Expressing an opinion is not a hate crime here. This means we have to protect people’s rights to say and publish their opinions, even if 99% of everyone else thinks they are stupid and wrongheaded.

4

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
While I know Canada has laws based on the principles you enunciated, the U.S. does not – they would be unconstitutional. Expressing an opinion is not a hate crime here. This means we have to protect people’s rights to say and publish their opinions, even if 99% of everyone else thinks they are stupid and wrongheaded.[/quote]

Don`t change the formula, guys.

One can always sue the stupid or wrongheaded.

5

My only citation is, in either instance it was the wrong forum.

6

JDUBB and vroom:

I agree that it was the wrong forum, and the university CAN decide to restrict emails to “ALL” from allowing ANY political speech, but it can’t cherry-pick and only enforce against opinions it likes. The government, when acting as an employer and not the government, can make the same types of restrictions as a employer could, and can define “proper use” of its equipment to disallow political emails to user lists.

DAN C:

I may be being dense, but I don’t understand your point. You can’t sue people simply for their opinions – well, I suppose you can file the suit, but a judge should throw it out of court on a preliminary motion to dismiss because it is protected political speech. You can sue under specific conditions for libel or harassment, but those aren’t present in these examples.

7

Nobody has suggested a pick and choose approach. I don’t know where you are getting that from.

However, on the topic of harassment, if you were a member of the minority in question, would you not be able to claim you were being harassed? If the employer is made aware of the actions and does nothing to prevent them might that not put them in complicity?

A lot of companies do control personal use of resources – presumably to avoid liability concerns. Companies do a lot of things to avoid liability concerns (e.g. caution, coffee may be hot – no shit sherlock).

8

BB: I was talking a the more general sense. Things seems simple and priorities are different in the USA.

For example, here we have 2 different law systems here, depending if you live in Quebec or not. Same thing for languages. Majority of French in Quebec and the opposite (English) in the rest of Canada.

Like you said, the same speech would have different consequences if said in Canada or the USA. The Freedom of Speech is top priority in the States. Here it is not.

We also have tons of different, read: more complicated, things here. We have a rights system that allows anybody waiving the religious flag to pretty much do what they want. For example, a guy wearing a Turban eventually got the right to wear his Turban instead of the Smokey Bear Mountie Hat (sorry, I do not have the exact word). When in Rome, Do like the Romans does not seem to apply in Canada. I doubt the same guy could pull such a Turban stunt in the US Marines.

So, to sum it up, in a more general sense, things seems simpler in the US. Keep it that way. Far less red tape. Far more efficient.

9

vroom:

In a word, “No.” But of course, it’s a tad more complicated than that. There does exist “hostile environment” harassament claims, but not for all minorities – this is solely in the province of sexual discrimination. And the employer remedy is basically to try to ban all sexually explicit material.

In the original scenario, like I said, there’s no claim at all on the initial e-mail. The minority in question could have a claim for personal harassment IF: 1) He complains about the initial incident; 2) It gets repeated over and over and 3) The government (acting as employer) does nothing about it. The only solution the government (public school = government, BTW) would have, in this case, is to ban ALL political emails, or ban all political emails to “ALL USERS” or some other such measure.

10

DAN C:

Ah. Well said. Couldn’t agree with you more.

11

Sounds to me like we are describing the same thing BB… except you prefer your terminology to mine… :wink:

12

Do you have any information as to the e-mail policy of the college?