The First Amendment mandates under no uncertain
terms that government may not abridge the freedom of speech. Of course it means
that every person has the absolute right to express unpopular, offensive and
downright disgusting opinions, and government may not punish anyone for exercising
that right.
After all, that was the purpose of the First
Amendment. That’s the way it’s supposed to be in the United States of America but
lately there has come in to existence an army of government speech police who
think they have the authority to arrest the First Amendment. They punish people
for engaging in free expression when they decide that they don’t like such
expression.
Yes, these speech police don’t have constitutional
authority to arrest the First Amendment. They can’t do it. It’s
unconstitutional. But today they’re not only doing it, they’re getting away
with it. They actually believe that they have the authority to adopt and
enforce speech codes. It’s as if the First Amendment is null and void today.
The Florida State
Attorney’s Office recently punished an assistant state attorney,
suspended
him from his job, for violating
the office’s social media policy. Apparently, state employees
in Florida do not enjoy First Amendment rights in their personal Facebook
accounts. The speech police have adopted
a social media policy arresting freedom of speech.
Assistant State
Attorney Kenneth Lewis, an employee in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Florida State
Attorney’s Office, was disciplined for posting a Facebook message in his
personal account expressing what the speech police deemed “scathing“ opinions about
the recent terrorist massacre in Orlando that left 49 dead and dozens wounded.
"Downtown Orlando has no bottom,” Lewis posted. “The entire city should be
leveled. It is void of a single redeeming quality. It is a melting pot of 3rd
world miscreants and ghetto thugs. It is void of culture. If you live down
there you do it at your own risk and at your own peril… If you go down there
after dark there is seriously something wrong with you. Disney does everything
in its power to shield visitors of Disney from its northern blight. That
doesn't change reality. Disney may be the happiest place on earth but Orlando
is a national embarrassment. If this is an act of domestic terrorist it is so
important that we don't publish the religion, name, or motive of the terrorist
as not to offend anyone."
This rather benign series of comments is apparently
what violated the State Attorney’s Office social media policy according to speech
police officials. Lewis has been severely disciplined and is now subject to termination.
He had been disciplined previously for making a “crack hoes” comment on
Facebook in 2014.
In short his constitutional First Amendment
rights to freedom of speech have been arrested and abridged. And it appears
that the speech police in Florida are probably going to get away with it.
A judge in Daytona Beach Florida has already upheld a
decision by the speech police there to fire a central Florida beach police officer
who posted what were deemed “racist comments” on his private Facebook account about the killing of Trayvon Martin. Officer
Todd Snipes was fired for posting messages allegedly “celebrating the
shooting,” calling the deceased a “thug,” using a racial slur, and
stating that people should know to pull their pants up and be respectful.
Were the comments he posted unpopular, offensive,
and perhaps downright disgusting to some? Probably, yes. But in the United States of America a person
has a constitutional right to hold and express such opinions. That's the
purpose of the First Amendment.
The speech police have no lawful authority to arrest
the First Amendment.
I consider myself a hard-line libertarian and I find myself in sort-of-agreement with the underlying principle if not the details of the instant case: employees of the people do not enjoy certain rights when they are acting as employees of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe particular right I am contemplating is that pesky ol' 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Lois Lerner, for example, should NOT have been able to assert a 5th amendment right when questioned about her job performance. Her actions off the job are different, but when I'm paying her and I ask questions, I want answers, not stonewalling.
Perhaps the 1st amendment is different. It probably is.