After Mayor Varela’s promise of curbing free speech in the City Chamber on March 29th, I wondered if he really had the legal right to do what he did because he felt it offensive or he was protecting his friends or it simply made him personally uncomfortable. Is our Mayor within his mayoral powers in making a policy that can and might very well be legally challenged?
This all came about during Laurence McNamara’s statements during public commentary bringing up the names of Mary Lindsey and Loretta Sharpe, and his charge that it was they who were behind the insistence of a Public Performance Review (an outing) for Susan Stanton, the first ever public review in Lake Worth. The implication was that having the review in this manner was political and we agree. The outcome of the scoring matrix is proof of that, with Maxwell and Varela giving Stanton low scores and the other three commissioners giving her high ones. This Commission should have been critiquing her all year long. To spend 35 to 50 hours on research and compile a red book, 2 inches think, goes beyond reason, unless, of course, you are presenting a case.
McNamara's comments were in a public building paid by taxpayers and involved the mention of public figures. The Mayor didn't like McNamara's comments although he never cautioned Shanon Materio when she said that Mary Lindsey was smarter than many of those sitting on the Dais.
Sometime there is a fine line between what free speech is and what a personal attack is. Is what McNamara said a personal attack? Is it taking advantage of people under the guise of free expression? Is telling the truth a personal attack? When is using a name of a public figure in public unacceptable? Under what circumstances? Since when can we not use someone's name with whom we disagree? Is simply the tone of voice of the commentator what perpetuated the hard line? Is it only taboo when it is negative commentary against others? Are compliments acceptable? If not, why not?
Both these women have used my name during their public commentary. They were not silenced. It didn't bother me. Bo Allen talked about gays and "blow jobs." Why was this not challenged? He didn't apply a name to it?
I don’t have the legal answer but it seems that more and more of our rights are being eroded on a daily basis. Glenn Beck, when talking about the Obama administration said,“One way this administration and its helpers are doing it (taking away our ability of free expression) is by systematically stripping away our right to free speech. Yes, the president and other progressives profess to be the saviors of our First Amendment rights.But when you pull back the curtain, you will see that free speech is being eradicated for controlled speech: Control over the media; control over the Internet; control over you.”
As much as I can’t stand the ACLU more often than not, at least it has taken up the challenge on the right of free speech. Elected politicians have a real problem with residents exercising their rights under The First Amendment. The ACLU has argued that this kind of limit on speech is so “draconian that, if upheld, it would allow even city councils to ban people from meetings if they disliked the point of view they may have.”
Our Rights are being taken from us and it is the very politicians that swear to uphold our Constitution that are doing it. Mayor Varela is a Jeffersonian. Visit the Thomas Jefferson Center and read what Jefferson says about the fact that government has no right to restrict expression because of its message.
There seems to be much more leeway on the Internet and we see that daily on a local talk board. Despicable lies and cyber attacks are the norm. Leonard Pitts' article this past Saturday entitled "Anonymity breeds Contempt" says that anonymity should not be allowed because when "people don't have to account for what they say, they will often say and do things that would shock their better selves." It is the "worst of human nature under the guise of free speech," according to Pitts.
"The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801.
It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation Concerning Paroles, 1781. FE 2:430, Papers 4:404
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. --George Washington
Justice William Douglas wrote: Government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. This is why freedom of speech…is…protected against censorship or punishment… There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
According to Suffolk Media Law that is recognized by the American Bar Association as a select legal resource, "The 1st Amendment was not written to protect speech that is approved by everyone. The 1st Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy and embodies perhaps our country’s most important ideals." Read more about this subject HERE.
The Poll asked if Mayor Varela was legally correct? Those who took the poll here were on one side of the issue or the other which is not surprising because that is how this city is divided on everything. It's sort of like constant war...which side will win this one? If Cara Jennings had tried to stifle free speech, would the poll have turned out differently. There was only 1 "maybe" answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment