OPINION | The Limitations on Free Speech; Say Whut?

Editor’s Note: This column is an opinion (op-ed). The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of EyeOnDelNorte.com or its staff.

By Sam Strait

I recently read an article claiming that “free speech” was being violated at Crescent City Harbor District meetings, which prompted me to review the guiding principles surrounding the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The 1st Amendment reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first thing to note is that only the government or its representatives can violate a speaker’s right to free speech. In this instance, the author of the article admits no such violation occurred by any representative of the government, as the speaker was allowed to continue. A private citizen “violating your right to speak” is a much different kettle of fish. There is no 1st Amendment protection for a speaker who speaks to or about another private citizen without their permission.

Often this permission is understood, but not always. In this case, the invocation of a private person’s name could be interpreted as harassment intended to dissuade that person from pursuing a recall of two members of the current Harbor Board of Commissioners. Harassment, in this situation, could invoke a civil proceeding that may ultimately cost the speaker in the form of an adjudicated civil fine.

While this is one example of speech not protected by the 1st Amendment, there are several others. These are categories of speech not protected from government censorship; speech between private parties is not bound by the 1st Amendment.

Incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, defamation, harassment, fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, illegal conduct, and time, place, and manner restrictions are all not protected by the 1st Amendment. While not necessarily prosecutable, public commenters at harbor meetings are often unaware that they can be asked to cease by the chairman of the Harbor Commission — and he would not be violating their right to free speech.

Far too often, members of the Harbor Board and the public participating in its meetings have no real concept of what constitutes permissible speech. Many categories are regularly violated during public comment or blurted out unsolicited during board discussions, even though they could legally be censored under the 1st Amendment’s limitations. It is not that there are legitimate examples of 1st Amendment rights being violated at Harbor Commission meetings; rather, too often rights are being claimed where they do not exist.

Much of the chaos demonstrated at many Harbor Commission meetings could be avoided through better meeting management by the board’s chairman, particularly with more attention given to Rosenberg’s Rules of Order — to be followed by both the commissioners and the public. Yes, harbor commissioners included. Unfortunately, chaos has persisted far too long, obscuring the important business necessary for the harbor to become solvent.

Far too much time is wasted on antics such as “he’s a liar,” “it’s a Brown Act violation,” “my 1st Amendment rights are being violated,” or other spoken harassment for the Harbor Commission to function effectively.

A newly elected chair of the Harbor Commission is imminent, and a change of direction is necessary to restore the semblance of order clearly lacking for the past year. Adherence to Rosenberg’s Rules of Order is a good start, followed by a clearer understanding of what constitutes permissible “free speech” and what does not. What does not meet that standard should be the first thing on the proverbial chopping block at future meetings. Threats, defamation, and harassment are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Too often, members of the audience and even the Board fail to ask permission from the chairman to be properly recognized, leading to more chaos and disruption that interrupts and burdens the Board’s ability to conduct business.

This chaos, misunderstanding, and abuse of the right of free speech must stop now!