October 18, 2012 at 6:21 am, by Carl
A few weeks ago another blow was made against free speech in my city, Winter Park, FL. Back in August, some opponents of abortion made a protest outside the home of the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando. As we might imagine, the CEO, a Ms. Jenna Tosh didn’t like their protest (from all that can be discovered, the protesters merely held up signs). That she was unhappy is normal—I would have had the same feeling—but then the city when beyond merely consoling her into banning free speech. Even our more liberal leaning paper, the Orlando Sentinel was shocked by this decision.
That’s right—the City Commissioners passed a ban on any form of protest against a residence. Boy, glad this rule wasn’t in effect back during the American Revolution or we would still be under the rule of the Monarch. John Hancock, Sam Adams, Paul Revere and the rest of the Sons of Liberty would be astonished.
Of course, if you keep up at all with the efforts at banning “hate speech” or the love affair with postmodernism and its offspring, a twisted version of tolerance, you aren’t really surprised. Free Speech has been under attack in the USA (and indeed all of the lands that typically encompass Western Civilization) for decades.
The problem with such attacks is that they miss what such victory brings. These kinds of stances (that the protestors have no right to speak their mind…or that they can speak their mind but only in certain locations dictated by the government) is really a form of ‘might makes right.’
See, what is being proposed is that someone gets to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Of course, usually religious groups are the ones who get accused of tossing their morality on the rest of us, but in this case, it is really the supposed proponents of “tolerance” or “progressive thought” who are enforcing their religious views on society. They have determined what they believe to be true and then use the full force of the government to enforce their desires, even at the cost of free speech.
But, the real danger of this is that once a society loses free speech, then the door is open for whoever controls power to do the same whenever they wish. Currently, for instance, “hate speech” would be anything that the left or progressives deem offensive. In Winter Park, apparently dangerous hate speech is supporting the life of babies. But, what about in a future Winter Park, even one just a few years away? What if others gain power who dislike something currently cherished. If you give away free speech now to protect what “you love,” then when the other side gains power, they will do the same thing. “Might makes right.” As long as “we” are in power, then we can and will determine what is right, what can or cannot be said openly.
This way of living of course quickly descends into a loop of violence and retribution. Look no further for examples than the various genocide stories in places like the Balkans or Africa. When one group is in power, all rights for the other side go out the window. In order to protect free speech, you have to be willing to defend the person who speaks out against whatever it is you personally believe. The Christian needs to defend the atheist. The pro-environmental person needs to defend the person who thinks there is no global warming. And yes, the pro-abortion supporter needs to champion the pro-life person’s right to speak their mind….even standing outside a residence.
One glance at our history will demonstrate why this is critical. Prior to the crisis ridden 1600s in England, the average citizen could not actually criticize the monarchy. Oh, privately, they probably said whatever they wanted, but they had to take care lest someone turn them in. Then, in 1688, the Glorious Revolution came and with it, a Declaration of Rights that Monarchs William and Mary signed. That document contained both a protection for the average citizen to protest or petition to the King as well as protection for members of Parliament for things they might say during legal sessions. In other words, the new rights in England allowed that a citizen was still being a faithful subject EVEN AS THEY OPPOSED laws or choices made by the monarch.
100 years later, when our Constitution was being written, concerns sprang up around the country that no clear provision for the same protection of free speech could be found in the document. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” did not think it necessary due to his reading of the document—he was using a strict construction of the Constitution to mean that the Government could only do what was in the document. Since there was no provision to ALLOW the government to limit free speech, he didn’t think it important.
His opponents disagreed and argued loudly, threatening to not support the new Constitution. Thus, Madison relented and once the new Congress was called, he took the lead in getting through that body a series of amendments to the Constitution, which we now call the Bill of Rights. Leading the way was the idea that government could not limit anyone’s free speech.
Apparently, someone needs to remind my city commissioners. If we can be put in jail or financially penalized for speaking our mind, especially if peaceably, and in the process, only run afoul of one person’s specific moral rules, we have indeed lost our way.
Leave a Reply
Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.
1 Comment to Death of Free Speech
Jay RogersMay 12, 2013 at 12:51 am
We will be going back a third time next Saturday May 18th to the Tosh neighborhood on Aloma Ave. There is no secret about our campaigns, but this is intended as a personal message to you. I tried calling your cell a few times and the mailbox was not set up. You are welcome to come out with us at 9:30 AM on Saturday to write a blog article on this.
I wanted you to know that we’ve successfully challenged the buffer zone in Winter Park TWICE.
Each time, we’ve gotten a concession from the police. We are inching back toward sanity. The last time the police told us that we are allowed to “march” through the buffer zone, but may not “loiter.”
We may do a related event in the business district of Aloma Ave as well.
Here is the first challenge:
http://youtu.be/1VST1ONSguQ
Here is the second challenge:
http://youtu.be/wp8B8fk2nEc
Update: 4/14/2013
WINTER PARK, Florida (www.forerunner.com) — On Saturday, 4/13/13, Florida pro-life evangelists went back to the Aloma Avenue neighborhood in Winter Park for the first time since the City Commission voted to enforce an ordinance restricting residential picketing. An earlier Awareness Campaign had occurred on 8/18/12 in the neighborhood of the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Jenna Tosh.
Analysis
The police got it partly right and partly wrong. The police say in the video that they had been on the phone with the city attorney all morning trying to understand the ordinance. They understood that we cannot picket inside the buffer zone. They also thought that we cannot “loiter” outside the buffer zone. Either City Attorney Larry Brown was not telling them the truth or they were confused.
What does the ordinance say?
“Picket”; “Picketing”; and “Protest”. The terms “picket”, “picketing” and “protest” shall all mean, for purposes of this Section, any assembly of one or more persons in which such person or persons, through conduct, speech or any other fonn of expression, criticize, protest or complain about any matter in which a particular person, group of persons or type of persons is specifically targeted for protest, complaint or criticism, and where such assembly stands, loiters, congregates or mills before or about a single-family residence, [emphasis added] where a person who regularly resides therein is, or is perceived to be, a target, focus, subject or intended recipient of the protest, complaint or criticism.
The city attorney explained that if a residence is targeted, then picketers cannot “camp out” or “loiter” within 50 feet. However, they may “march,” “proselytize” and “distribute literature.” The federal judge agreed:
They may camp out and form a picket line fifty-one feet away from the targeted residence, or down the street. They may parade through the neighborhood and past the targeted residence inside the fifty-foot buffer zone, so long as they do not loiter. The Frisby Court had to construe that ordinance to apply only to targeted picketing, but this ordinance explicitly does so….
This Court finds that the [Winter Park] ordinance is narrowly tailored because it is directed only at targeted protesting focused on a specific residence; the ordinance is not overly broad for the same reason—it is directed to the very particular harm caused by protesting within fifty feet of a private residence and forcing a message onto a captive, unwilling listener.
What did the police say?
The following is a partial transcript of the above video.
The city adopted an ordinance that restricts protests within 50 feet of a targeted location. 50 feet from the property line to both sides of the house. So if you were in excess of 50 feet from both sides of the house and not loitering in one area, but walking around, I would not have a problem with that at all. But the ordinance clearly says 50 feet from the targeted residence and that’s the buffer area that we have to enforce.
Asked if we can be marching back and forth in the buffer zone.
… not within 50 feet of the property line.
They then explained that no arrests would be made because Jenna Tosh had not called and made a complaint.
Our city attorney just advised me that the ordinance that was written by the city attorney has been upheld and can be enforceable…. I just got off the phone… I will double check with Mr. Brown, but I talked to him …
Asked again if we would be arrested if we stayed inside the buffer zone.
I am saying that if you were in 50 feet of the property line and are targeting this residence, protesting or picketing, you are subject to arrest.
Does that include people who don’t have Jenna Tosh signs or are just standing in the buffer zone?
If we determine at that time that it violates the ordinance then you are subject to arrest, if that’s our determination at that time…. If we get a complaint from the home owner, we are going to enforce the ordinance as it is written.
Asked again if that includes people who don’t have Jenna Tosh signs or are just standing in the buffer zone with a camera.
If you are not picketing, under the city ordinance’s definition while targeting this house with certain information I would not arrest you. If you violate the ordinance, you are subject to arrest if they have a complaint filed.
Asked if people who were marching through the buffer zone with a sign would be subject to arrest.
If they are marching within 50 feet of the buffer area, yes.
Inside the buffer area?
Inside the buffer area, they would be subject to arrest.