[Editorial]  Council: Revisit Free Speech 101

November 30, 2011

The Jackson City Council voted Tuesday to extend a compromise to the Occupy Jackson protesters, allowing them a permit to stay in Smith Park until 11 p.m., rather than all night. That may or may not have been the right compromise between their right to assemble and the city's need to ensure nothing happens to them in the middle of the night. We'll leave that question open for the moment and encourage debate on it.

One thing seemed clear to us from the city council debate, though: Many people are fuzzy on what "free speech" means—and the right for it to extend equally to all, regardless of point of view (as long as its safety risks do not trump the right, which is often a complicated and unclear nexus).

But the council discussions centered on whether a particular member thought the cause behind the speech/assembly was worthy. Those who might identify more with the moderately anarchistic approach of 24-hour protest (such as Ward 2 Councilman Chokwe Lumumba) tended to think they should be there all night, comparing the Occupy participants with civil-rights protesters.

On the other hand, Ward 1 Councilman Quentin Whitwell showed his corporate-lobbyist colors by opposing the protest based on little more than obvious disdain for the protesters and their cause.

The Lumumba contingent waved away concerns that should the Ku Klux Klan want the same permit, the council would have to grant it. They just said they wouldn't. But if they denied it, they would be in direct violation of the First Amendment: a government preferring the speech of one group over another. Think Nazis' right to march in largely Jewish Skokie, Ill., as a parallel.

We also suspect that Whitwell wouldn't be as adamant against the permit should the group be a counter-effort more in lockstep with his ward's dominant corporate-conservative views—but that's just a guess.

The problem here is a blatant misunderstanding of the First Amendment by elected officials charged with upholding it. The very test of a dedication to "free speech," which the Constitution prohibits government from restricting without legitimate cause (that nexus again), is whether you believe in it for those who are diametrically opposed to your views. Thus, both contingents failed this week: Lumumba in saying that he would just deny a permit to the Klan and Whitwell for not declaring that he believed in protesters' right to assemble and speak 12 or 24 hours a day as long as the standard was applied without prejudice.

We don't want to see Kluckers camped in Smith Park. But we have witnessed inspiring examples of free speech flowing both directions as it's supposed to: whether Klansmen marching in Philadelphia, Miss., or New York City, far outnumbered by protesters who showed up in both places to shout them down.

Our city would be better served by elected representatives who understand what the First Amendment is—and is not.

COMMENTS

100 recent comments »