Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

There seems to be confusion among some Americans about what constitutes freedom of speech in the nation. The issue arose because at least 10 students who had been admitted to Harvard University have had their acceptance revoked. They had apparently authored racially or sexually offensive memes on a social media site. The Harvard administration decided that such conduct disqualified them for admission.

Critics assert that Harvards action constitutes a violation of the right of free speech. Hardly. While revocation of acceptance is a severe consequence, it is never too early for the young to learn that every individual must assume responsibility for their statements. In the past, comments attracting censure were usually made on the radio, in print or in the public square. Now social media, which are generally accessible, have led to a loss of privacy, and created another hazard because of the publics fascination with technology.

The Russian invasion of the countrys election process demonstrates that privacy is readily invaded. Citizens and institutions have the right to react adversely to publicized comments. Publishers must properly identify the authors of comments, and those wishing to remain anonymous must evade the long reach of technology.

More:
Free speech revisited at Harvard University - BayStateBanner

Its official. Doctors may talk to their patients about gun safety.

Florida had passed a law in 2011 that had restricted the ability of physicians to speak on that subject.

Called Docs vs. Glocks, it was a blatant attack on the First Amendment that did not rise to the level of other constitutional restrictions on free speech, such as slander, libel or falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Had the law survived legal scrutiny, it might have served as model for the rest of the nation, much like Stand Your Ground.

The bill had been based on a few unfortunate incidents, especially one in which a physician asked a patient a standard question about gun safety in the home, the patient refused to answer and the physician then refused to treat.

The doctor-patient relationship is a sacred one. And in a free society, doctors and patients have the right to fire each other.

A lawsuit challenging the bill had been upheld by several three-judge panels in the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Finally, however, the full appellate court overturned the law, 8 to 3.

The state of Florida recently let the deadline pass for continuing an appeal. So now its final.

The law basically was an example of political correctness gone wild. As the court mentioned in its decision, there was no evidence that doctors had taken away patients firearms precisely because they have no right to do so.

The record-keeping, inquiry and anti-harassment provisions of the law were struck down, but the anti-discrimination portion was deemed constitutional.

The Bill of Rights sometimes requires the courts to find a balance between individual rights, such as right of free press and the right to a fair trial.

Some proponents of the Second Amendment appear to be trying to carve out a special level for the right to bear arms based on he phrase, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

In his book, Shall Not Be Infringed, authors David Keene and Thomas Mason assert that the phrase places the Second Amendment on its own tier of rights.

They write that much of the gun control debate relies on symbolic and nonexistent solutions that would do little, if anything, to reduce gun violence or gun crimes. They offer several persuasive examples, such as the so-called gun show loophole 90 percent of guns sold at gun shows are already sold to federally licensed firearms dealers who conduct background checks.

By the same token, Floridas Firearms Owners Privacy Act was a classic overreaction to a nonexistent problem.

This issue wasnt all that difficult.

The Second Amendment, in clarifying the right to own guns, refers to a well regulated militia.

What did the Founders mean?

One example was described in the book The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman.

In 1792, Congress passed a law requiring every free and able-bodied white male citizen between 18 and 45 to enroll in a state militia and buy a gun. Basically, it was a draft.

Congress established a nationwide registry of privately owned guns for militia use, called a return.

The public largely ignored the law.

CONGRESSMAN PAYS FOR ATTACK ON REPORTER

Justice was done in the inexcusable attack by U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte, R-Montana, on a reporter for the Guardian, Ben Jacobs.

The reporter simply asked the congressman about the cost of the Republican health care plan during a campaign event. Gianfortes response was to slam Jacobs to the floor.

Gianforte was convicted of assault, sentenced to 40 hours of community service and 20 hours of anger management, The New York Times reported. He also issued an apology to the reporter and paid about $4,500 in expenses to the reporter.

Current tension in the country has resulted in verbal attacks on the press, sometimes led by the president, that can feed into this kind of assault.

SCHOOL BOARD: USING RESERVES wisely

The Duval County School Board is right to use reserves as a result of the Legislatures irresponsible overmanagement of the states school districts.

At the same time, board members are right to be cautious and responsible, realizing that these are one-time funds that are meant to be used in emergencies.

Florida law requires a 3 percent reserve; Duval maintains 5 percent, so there are funds available.

The goal of repaying the reserves is consistent with responsible stewardship.

UPGRADE THE MILITARY

Evidence that Americas military might has been allowed to slip under President Barack Obama came home in a recent news stories.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, only three of the Armys 58 brigade combat teams are at full readiness.

More than half of the Navys aircraft cant fly because they need parts or maintenance.

The Air Force is short about 1,500 pilots and 3,000 mechanics.

And in April, the Navy announced the grounding of T-45 jets after 100 instructor pilots went on strike due to concerns about hypoxia-like conditions in the cockpits, reported military.com.

Also two-third of the Navys strike fighters cant fly because their undergoing maintenance or waiting for parts, reported defensenews.com.

The Navy cant get money to move sailors and families, about $440 million is needed to pay sailors and 15 percent of shore facilities are failing.

The headlines and the political support typically go to sexy new weapons systems, but its clear the nations leaders have been failing to keep Americas most respected occupation in tip-top shape.

Read more from the original source:
Thursday Editorial: Freedom of speech returns to the doctor's office ... - Florida Times-Union

Lets not mince words. Once again, the courts have rescued the people of Florida from the extremism of their own Legislature.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Gov. Rick Scott let the deadline pass to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the decision striking down the gag order on doctors in the infamous Docs v. Glocks case.

Whether this was an intentional decision to throw in the towel on this dangerous and unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech or simply neglect, we dont know. But any threat to strip a doctor of his or her license for talking to patients about the safe storage of guns in the home has been removed.

The American Civil Liberties Union, aided by an exceptionally skilled legal team, worked for six years on behalf of more than a half-dozen medical, pediatric and childrens rights organizations in support of the doctors who courageously challenged the states effort to gag their discussions with patients about gun safety and especially keeping guns out of the reach of children.

Yes, there is a constitutional right to own a gun. We all get that. But our legislature was conned into swallowing the fiction that talking about guns and gun safety somehow threatened this constitutional right.

What is important now is that every doctor in Florida knows that the First Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of speech once again provides protection for the medical community to honor its mission to protect the health and lives of patients. And this includes counseling patients who own guns to ensure that they are safely stored to prevent suicides and out of the reach of children to prevent tragic accidental shootings.

And this includes counseling patients who own guns to ensure that they are safely stored to prevent suicides and out of the reach of children to prevent tragic accidental shootings.

One of the many reasons that this case was so important is that Florida became a test case. If the courts didnt stand up for the free speech of doctors, you could be sure that the National Rifle Association would have had this dangerous law introduced in every state. But the strong affirmation of free speech by the federal appeals court hopefully ends this deadly threat here.

This victory for the freedom of speech for doctors and the medical community had to overcome the collective opposition of very powerful forces, including the NRA, which sponsored this dangerously mistaken policy, the Legislature that adopted it, the governor who signed it, and the attorney general who defended it in the courts.

But after six years, that is now thankfully behind us.

Editors note: Howard Simon is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Our Legislature was conned into swallowing the fiction that talking about guns and gun safety somehow threatened the constitutional right to bear arms.

See the original post:
POINT OF VIEW In 'Docs v. Glocks', a win for free speech, public health - Palm Beach Post

Chalk it up to a lesson in free speech: Kutztown University has changed its policy on sidewalk chalk messages after an antiabortion group protested what it called censorship by scrub brush.

The episode began in March when a chapter of Students for Life of America used colored chalk to write antiabortion messages on sidewalks at the rural Berks County university, which is part of the Pennsylvania state system of higher education.

After university employees washed away the messages on two consecutive days, the student group turned to a conservative nonprofit legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom. It sent a letter to the university president, accusing the school of unconstitutional censorship and demanding a revised chalking policy.

In a statement issued Monday, the university said the March incident was simply a misunderstanding as the messages were erased during campus cleaning.

A student group chalked antiabortion messages on Kutztown University sidewalks

When the university administration became aware of the situation, the group was immediately informed that it had every right to chalk its messages on our campus, the statement said.

The chalking guidelines were revised in April to better reflect our support of free speech, the statement added. The revision scrapped a section on message content that required messages to be educational or informative in nature, and prohibited messages deemed to have a clear and present potential hazard of interfering with the process of the university.

In a statement Monday, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Travis Barham said: No public university can silence student speech simply because officials dont like what the students are saying. We commend Kutztown University officials for revising their policy to respect freedom of speech for all students.

Around the country, chalking has long been a cheap, easy way for students to advertise campus events. But in recent years, a number of schools have had flaps over politically charged messages. Last year at Emory University outside Atlanta, for example, chalk declarations supporting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump prompted a protest demonstration; the university president issued a bulletin affirming the value of vigorous debate, speech, and protest as well as civility and inclusion.

Last month in California, Alliance Defending Freedom and Students for Life decried the erasure of antiabortion chalk texts at Fresno State University. But in that case, a professor and his students scuffed out messages for which the university had given permission, according to alliance lawyers.

Published: June 13, 2017 2:06 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read the original:
In flap over free speech, Kutztown University loosens sidewalk ... - Philly.com

Counterdemonstrating against the alt-right in Portland (Leighta Lehto)

"FREE SPEECH or die, Portland. You got no safe space. This is America. Get out if you don't like free speech."

Those were the chilling words of anti-Muslim terrorist Jeremy Christian at his arraignment for stabbing three people who tried to stand up to his harassment of two women of color, one of them wearing a hijab, on a light rail train in Portland, Oregon.

Christian was responding to the far right's current cynical campaign in defense of what it calls "free speech"--which to the bigots means the freedom to harass, intimidate and assault oppressed people with no opposition.

In a Facebook event in support of Christian that was quickly deleted, white nationalists claimed that in killing two people and seriously injuring a third, Christian was defending his right to free speech from the men who tried to stop him from verbally assaulting two high school girls with his bigoted rant.

In a less overt call to violently protect hate speech at the alt-right's June 4 "Trump Free Speech" rally, Kyle Chapman--also known as "Based Stickman"--encouraged members of the crowd to "protect people with conservative ideology from being systematically oppressed."

And, of course, these right-wingers also unapologetically support the many First Amendment violations committed by police. There were a multitude of "Blue Lives Matter" flags at the right's June 4 rally--and the right-wingers cheered when police used excessive force to shut down the Antifa counterprotest. When the rights of 300 counterprotesters were violated by police who kettled them on a city block and took pictures of their IDs, these so-called champions of "freedom" had nothing to say.

But attempts by newly forming fascist organizations to warp the concept of freedom of speech shouldn't lead our side to abandon this important principle, which is vital to building a strong movement that can take on the racist right.

Calls from politicians to put limitations on speech, like the attempt made by Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler to get the federal government to revoke the alt-right's permit for the June 4 rally, only serve to further embolden the right and plant the seeds for future crackdowns on the left.

Fortunately, a much more effective response to the right took place when more than 2,000 Portlanders attended various counterprotests, the largest one being the Portland Stands United Against Hate rally.

The counterprotesters refused to be intimidated and used their free speech to show the far right that the vast majority of Portland won't allow hate to go unchallenged. Mobilizations like this are the only effective option for confronting the emboldened right and their efforts to recruit larger numbers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHEELER'S REQUEST may have struck many progressives as a logical response, particularly after the experience of a previous right-wing rally that Christian showed up to with a baseball bat a few weeks before his double homicide that traumatized the city.

In reality, however, the mayor's action played into the hands of the far right, which is actively recruiting by positioning itself as defenders of free speech.

The federal government declined to revoke the permit, but the right was still able to use Wheeler's request to its advantage. Portland organizers of a June 10 anti-Muslim rally announced that they would move their efforts out of Portland to Seattle "due to Mayor Wheeler's inflammatory comments and what we feel is an incitement of violence, he has shamefully endangered every scheduled participant."

The decision to not have another hate rally in Portland might, in reality, have been a response to the quick organization of a second Portland Stands United Against Hate event and the large numbers of people who promised to attend another counterprotest. But the bigots will use any opportunity to portray themselves as victims of perceived oppression to win new supporters.

The left should also be clear that we don't want our blatantly undemocratic government--which gave Donald Trump the presidency despite his losing the popular vote--to have the power to dictate the terms of free speech.

Restrictions on speech have historically been used to suppress oppressed minorities, workers and the left. This is clearly the intention of the new president, who during his campaign lamented over the "good old days" when protesters were treated "very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HIGH-PROFILE incidents of right-wing violence and intimidation are undoubtedly on the rise, from the Portland murders to the killing of Black army veteran Richard Collins III at the University of Maryland, to the death threats against Princeton professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. The right claims to be the protectors of freedom, yet they are terrorizing people who want to use those freedoms in their lives.

But we have to be clear that the government blocking right-wing rallies won't stop the right's hateful message from taking root--not as long as the underlying conditions fueling hatred and bigotry goes unaddressed.

Since the economic crisis of 2007-08, a political polarization has taken place in the U.S., pushing people to the left and to the right at the same time. The right's answer to the crisis has been to step up scapegoating, while Donald Trump escalates the war on workers and the oppressed. The far right and Republicans are drawing closer together, as each looks to take advantage of the other's successes to recruit.

Government crackdowns on free speech and small bands of left-wing street fighters won't stop the right--on the contrary, they might, in fact, help the right to recruit.

Instead, we need large numbers to confront the right, expose their fraudulent claims to be an oppressed "silent majority," and demoralize potential new supporters.

We must also focus on organizing our side to pose an alternative to the right's scapegoating and hate as polarization continues to deepen. We're going to need to use our right to free speech to expose the hypocrisy of the bigots--and argue for a radical alternative to the dehumanizing conditions of capitalism that created the conditions for the right to grow.

Christopher Zimmerly-Beck contributed to this article.

Go here to read the rest:
We need free speech to fight the right - Socialist Worker Online

Its decision time at the Supreme Court, as the justices prepare to hand down the final rulings of their current term by the end of this month. They are due to rule in 21 cases, including disputes over religion, free speech and immigration that could have broad significance.

This years term has been quieter than normal. It began in the fall when eight justices were waiting for the presidential election to decide who would fill the seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia. New Justice Neil M. Gorsuch arrived in mid-April in time to hear about a dozen cases.

Most of this years docket was taken up with cases that asked the justices to clarify the law, not settle a highly contentious issue.

Before their summer recess, the justices are also expected to act on several pending appeals.

Lawyers for President Trump want the court to issue an order putting into effect his scaled-down foreign travel ban and then to grant review in the fall of the appeals court ruling that declared it unconstitutional.

The justices have also spent weeks considering appeals in three cases that could lead to major rulings if they are granted review for the fall. One involves a Colorado baker who turned away a gay couples request for a wedding cake. At issue is a clash between religious rights and a states anti-discrimination law. The other two cases test the reach of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

The court is also expected to take up a major case on partisan gerrymandering from Wisconsin which could yield early next year an important ruling on political power.

Here are notable cases due to be decided this month:

Must a state offer equal funds to church schools if other private groups may qualify? A seemingly small dispute over the playground at a Lutheran day center in Missouri could trigger a major shift in church-state law. Most states constitutions forbid sending tax money to a church. Religious rights advocates sued when Missouri refused to pay for rubberizing a church schools playground, and they argue the court should strike down the limits on state funds going to churches as discriminatory and abridging the 1st Amendments protection for the free exercise of religion. The court heard the case in April, a few days after Gorsuch arrived. (Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer)

Does the federal trademark law violate the freedom of speech because it forbids names and phrases that may disparage people or groups? Washington, D.C.s pro football team, the Redskins, are in danger of losing their trademark because of this provision. The justices heard the case of an Asian American band that calls itself the Slants and seemed divided over whether this was a racial slight or humor. (Lee vs. Tam)

May U.S. authorities arrest and jail for as long as needed immigrants who face deportation, or does the Constitutions guarantee of due process of law accord them a bond hearing within six months and possible release if they pose no danger or flight risk? A class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles challenged the long-term detention of these immigrants, many of whom typically go on to win their cases and are eventually set free. It led to a ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals putting limits on the jailing of immigrants. The case was heard in November shortly after President Trump was elected. (Jennings vs. Rodriguez)

Can a U.S. border patrol agent be sued for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager who was standing on the other side of the border? Video of the officer killing the 15-year-old boy provoked outrage along the border, but U.S. officials refused to prosecute the agent, and federal judges threw out a lawsuit filed by the boys parents on the grounds that the Constitution did not protect the Mexican boy on Mexican soil. In cases about the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, however, the court has said the Constitutions protection did extend to territory beyond the border that was under the control of U.S. authorities. (Hernandez vs. Mesa)

Is breaking into a garage or empty home a crime of violence that requires the deportation of a longtime legal immigrant? The law says noncitizens who are guilty of an aggravated felony, including a crime of violence, must be deported. But it is not clear what crimes qualify. A Filipino native who has lived in Northern California since 1992 faces deportation for a 10-year-old burglary conviction involving break-ins of a garage and a house. But the 9th Circuit Court said the law itself was unconstitutionally vague because it did not define a crime of violence. (Sessions vs. Dimaya)

david.savage@latimes.com

On Twitter: DavidGSavage

ALSO

Sessions to answer questions in public about Russia dealings

Attorneys general of Maryland and D.C. plan 'major lawsuit' against Trump

Trump attorney signals a firm stance in dealing with special prosecutor

Follow this link:
Decision time at the Supreme Court: Rulings expected soon on ... - Los Angeles Times

The June 4 commentary by Edward J. Cleary on protection of free speech over righteous censorship (Tending the flame of freedom ) was outstanding. It presented multiple strong arguments why we must be tolerant of and open to listening to the words of others, even if those words significantly differ from our own beliefs. The commentary was replete with good advice, too many points to adequately re-articulate here. One important focus was on speech code, the protection some seek/demand from thoughts and ideas adverse to their own. Sustaining such a closed environment reinforces a narrow-minded and self-centered populace.

Consider three recent news trends:students turning their backs on or walking out on commencement speakers, constituents shouting at public representatives at open public meetings, and anything to do with President Donald Trump. In each situation, individuals demand the right to voice or act out their opinion, but deny their opponents their equal right to express their own opinion. It is no wonder that our elected representatives are so ineffective. They are simply reflecting the narrow-mindedness of their constituents. Maintenance of free speech, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees, is the basis of democracy. When one denies free speech to others, or refuses to listen, that represents the beginning of the demise of democracy. Democracy provides each of us the right to our own opinions, but it does not provide the right to suppress the opinions of others.

Thomas P. Moyer, Golden Valley

See more here:
Readers Write: Freedom of speech, personal spending priorities, the Comey testimony - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Kathy Griffin backlash isn't censorship.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Daniel Finney, Springfield 7:16 p.m. CT June 10, 2017

Last week I was watching Kathy Griffin BOO-HOOing that the Trump family was trying to ruin her career. Someone in her "group" even said it's censorship. Seriously?

Just a few short years agoa rodeo clown, here in Missouri, wore a Halloween mask (that you could buy in a store) of President Obama as part of his routine in the rodeo. His career as a rodeo clown was ruined. He was labeled a racist and was called who knows what, received death threats, etc.

It's weird to me how a liberal mind can rationalize that wearing a Halloween mask is racist, but holding up the likeness of a sitting President's bloody severed head is freedom of speech!

Read or Share this story: http://sgfnow.co/2s9MSOx

0:55

Read the rest here:
Don't be selective with freedom of speech - Springfield News-Leader

In the past few years it has become a growing trend for individuals who feel the need to adamantly defend their constitutional right to free speech to usually be vehemently racist or otherwise problematic white people.

Whether it is Kim Davis, the county clerk who infamously defied the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court and refused to grant same-sex couples in Kentucky their marriage licenses, or Richard Spencer, a bold-faced white supremacist who advocates for peaceful ethnic cleansing, the first amendment has become a key rallying point for a growing conservative movement against a culture of Political correctness.

This particular view in a battle of principles is usually attributed to an honest and holistic respect for the American constitution as it is written. However, if this is the case, why do we rarely see these proud defendants of free speech when it comes to the frequent silencing of activists and people of color who choose to stand their ground?

A video from Texas State went viral this past semester after a student flew into a fit of rage toward a religious group that had fabricated images to persuade people to be pro-life concerning abortions. In the video, the student sets aside a balloon and bouquet of flowers to proceed through an audibly emotional tirade, kicking and punching various signs displaying graphic abortion imagery as an older gentleman attempts to calm him down.

Even many who supported his stance against anti-abortion rhetoric were eager to point out how his actions were ignorant, immature and a general disgrace to Texas States falsely proclaimed Free Speech Zone. Texas State is a public university and there is no specifically designated free speech zone, but the point to which students are willing to defend fabricated information that is obscene, hateful and potentially damaging to the mental health of many of their peers indicates a larger issue that perhaps is not tied to the sanctity of an organizations right to display poster boards.

Considering all of these are factors thatshouldfall under thelimits to free speechas defined by the Supreme Court casesGertz v. Robert Welch Inc.andMiller v. California, it becomes clear that students objections to this display of political rage are less rooted in concern for the preservation of constitutional rights, but rather fit a familiar rhetoric that desperately wishes only for peaceful, unobtrusive protests that allow the normalization of violent systems of oppression.

Whether you agree with this students actions or not, it is a silly notion to insist that he instead try talking to the organizers of the anti-choice display as if they themselves travel from university to university with the intention of having meaningful discourse and understanding. They purposefully produce hateful imagery and count on our loose understanding of constitutional free speech and need for normalcy as a buffer to spread their falsified information to vulnerable audiences. The more we find the courage to break out of these imagined rules on how to respectfully engage with perpetrators that are rarely held to the same standard respect, the more we can utilize the full range of options at hand when it comes to the dismantling of hateful institutions.

-Tafari Robertson is a public relations senior

View original post here:
Freedom of speech is for white people - Texas State University - The University Star

Salt Lake CityAt times, the workplace can feel like a battleground between free speech and preventing harassment or discrimination. Navigating the laws concerning both can be a tricky dance for employers and managers, but it can be done, said Ryan D. Nelson, president of the Utah Employment Association.

Just as you can express yourself, your employees can and will, inside and out of the workplace, and sometimes that cause conflict, he said.

Part of the conflict comes from the fundamental basis of expression in opinionbecause its an opinion, its holder cant be right or wrong, he said, and people express it usually with a certain expectation of being right. There are a number of laws, some of which supersede others, that have to be considered when balancing maintaining a safe workplace and allowing employees to have freedom of speech, he said.

The Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech is one such consideration, but so is the National Labor Relations Act, which protects free speech and political expressions as far as they touch on wages, hours or working conditions; Title VII, which applies to public and private employers with at least 15 employees and protects against harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; and Utahs own free speech law, which protects persons speaking as citizens on a matter of public concern as long as it doesnt disrupt business.

Those laws can sometimes trump each other, and in some instances, speech can be protected under some but not others. Nelson pointed to an op-ed from earlier this year from then-Wasatch County Republican Party Vice Chair James Green, who argued that eliminating the wage gap between men and women would be harmful for businesses and threaten mens abilities to provide for their families. The opinion piece received explosive backlash, prompting Green to resign from his position days later.

From a legal standpoint, Nelson said, Greens op-ed was protected speech under Utah Codeit expressed his opinion as a private citizen about a matter of public concernbut was not protected under Title VII or the NLRA. If Green had been fired, rather than resigned, that action would have been appropriate under Title VII and the NLRA, but would have broken Utah law.

Likewise, if an employee wants to display a religious picture or symbol in their personal workspace, although that action is not specifically covered by NLRA or Utah law, Title VII permits itas long as non-religious personal items, including photos, are allowed in others private workspaces and the religious item is not offensive to any other protected groups.

The balance can also depend on whether a company is a public or private employer, said Nelson, and extends beyond words and actions. A 2016 case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission centered on a Dont Tread on Me shirt worn by an employee that another employee, who was black, found offensive. The supervisor, familiar with the symbols history in the Revolutionary War, dismissed the black employees concerns that the symbol was racist. The EEOC found that while the supervisor was still within his rights to dismiss the concerns, he was negligent in researching the full history of the symbolin some areas, the familiar coiled snake is used by racist groups.

Nelson said the conflicting rules and analyses can make compliance difficult, but employers must exercise due diligence to not only be in compliance with the law but make sure their workplaces are conducive for employees. Employers might be tempted to either allow all forms of expression, or curtail personal expression altogether, but Nelson said there are problems with both of those approaches, as there is with a middle-of-the-road approach.

When youre doing this analysis running through the facts, you should have a very, very solid grasp on the facts, but also, with symbols, understand what they mean and what meaning they can have, he said. What we want to be aware of is where that line is drawn.

Nelson said employers should reiterate Equal Employment Opportunity policies and compliance, talk with managers to ensure they report issues, take inter-office employee relations into account, and be consistent with the policy across the board. By distilling a culture of co-existence, not just to managers but from bottom to top, employers can foster a welcoming workplace, he said.

Read the original:
Balance Between Free Speech, Respect in Workplace Tricky but Possible - Utah Business