On one level, it’s kinda funny. On another, it’s not funny at all. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, courtesy of Eugene Volokh, comes this story at the crossroad of politics and free speech.
[T]he Wisconsin Government Accountability Board rejected an independent Wisconsin Assembly candidate’s request to label herself on the ballot as “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’”:
Unlike candidates from the established Democratic and Republican parties, independents are allowed a five-word statement of purpose on the ballot to explain to voters what their candidacy is about. Shane Falk, a staff attorney for the Accountability Board, said that the board had the ability to restrict obscene or derogatory candidate statements from the ballot.
With one member absent, the board voted 3–2 in favor of reversing that ruling and allowing the wording. Under board rules, however, four votes are needed to overturn a staff decision.
To its credit, the majority voted to reverse the staff decision. A majority, unfortunately, wasn’t enough. But regardless of the board’s voting process, the question remains why anyone, any board, should have the power to stifle a candidate’s choice of the five-word statement of purpose chosen to reflect her candidacy.
This is politics. This is where a person runs for office to promote their political beliefs. Since when was there a requirement that political beliefs be couched in pleasant terms. Or even nice terms. Is the phrase, “NOT the whiteman’s bitch” derogatory? I would certainly think so. Does it make a political statement? Absolutely.
Is this not the fundamental purpose of free speech? Is this not the expression of a political idea, the most critical purpose of the First Amendment? Is it something that any governmental censor should be able to squelch? While not quite for it, Eugene isn’t exactly against it either.
As best I can tell, the relevant statute provides simply that, “Along with the names of the independent candidates shall appear the party or principle of the candidates, if any, in 5 words or less, as shown on their nomination papers”; I don’t know what statute or regulation gives the board authority to restrict the contents of those 5 words, and under what standards. I would be inclined to say that a viewpoint-neutral rule prohibiting vulgarities or epithets might well be constitutional, since the ballot is a state-created limited public forum. But I’m not sure exactly what rule is involved; please let me know if you know.
Aside from saying that “derogatory”, as with obscene, is in the eye of the beholder, derogatory political speech may be the most important speech there is to protect. Should political speech be limited, in any way, by the fact that it might offend? No doubt King George found the accusations of the Declaration of Independence offensive. Wasn’t that, at least in part, its point? What of the purpose of letting the King know what it was that his former subjects disliked about him? Should there have been a staffer to censor language that the King might find offensive?
It’s not that I’m much of a fan of the vulgar or epithets. I’m not. I try to avoid using them here, though one or two may emerge during casual conversation. On the other hand, they can send a message. They can be extremely useful in making a point or adding emphasis. The same is true of language that some might find derogatory. It can be very effective.
Clearly, a very strong message is sent by the description, “NOT the whiteman’s bitch.” The candidate, Ieshuh Griffin, likely chose the words carefully, with the intention of sending a very clear message with her chosen description. This is the essence of politics, and the essence of free speech.
While the regulation may be viewpoint-neutral, as Eugene states, it also inhibits the core of free speech, to express a viewpoint. When regulations on political speech inhibit, or prevent, the clear expression of a political view, they strike at the core of the First Amendment. This can’t be tolerated.
Let people be offended by Ms. Griffin’s description. Let people be offended by her politics. Let Ms. Griffin’s description be aired. That’s what free speech is all about.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For the record I agree: Ms. Griffin’s description should be allowed.
To go off topic a bit, you ask (perhaps rhetorically) “Is this not the fundamental purpose of free speech? Is this not the expression of a political idea, the most critical purpose of the First Amendment?”
Well, no. Who is to say that the expression of a political idea is the most critical purpose? Why not the expression of a religious or scientific idea? Or for that matter, why the expression of an idea at all? The whole point of free speech is that it is free, you can use it for whatever you want. As soon as you elevate one type of speech above another you make all speech less free.
[If this response is too far off topic, then don’t approve it – I’ll get the message.]
Not too far off at all. In fact, your comment makes me recognize my bias in favor of political speech as being extra-worthy of protection. I’ve come to accept that there are levels of speech, commercial v. non-commercial, fighting words, etc. But you raise a valid point, upon which my premise relies to some extent, that political speech is entitled to be heard, and that even strict scrutiny shouldn’t bar legitimate political speech. You’re point is well taken.
I wonder if she will have time to fight it in court.
OK, I accept there are levels of speech, but my statement was made in the context of talking about the first amendment. So let me rephrase it: “As soon as you assert that the first amendment elevates one type of speech above another, you make all speech less free”.
I’m agreeing with you.