Monday, June 11, 2007

Free Speech at Risk

What do the words and terms “family values,” “marriage,” and “natural family” have in common?  Well, if you reside in the State of California, which, unfortunately, falls under the cognizance of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, utilizing the words and terms mentioned above in a flier, or in talking with an acquaintance, could possibly end up having you convicted of a “hate speech” crime because the homosexual community may find these words and terms offensive.

You think I’m kidding?  I’m not.

In the case of Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks, said court ruled that

Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their “‘legitmate administrative interests’ outweigh the employee’s interest in freedom of speech.

The case actually had its origins some time ago, though this is the first I’ve heard about it.  The Washington Times is reporting on this story, today, in a piece titled Suit to decide workplace ‘hate speech.’ From the Times piece.

The dispute began in January 2003, when the two Oakland employees created a subgroup at their workplace called the “Good News Employee Association.” It was partly in response to a group of homosexual employees having formed their own group 10 months before and being given access to the city e-mail system. One e-mail, dated Oct. 11, 2002, invited city employees to participate in “National Coming-Out Day.”
When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a “celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement” was part of the city’s role to “celebrate diversity.”
In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.
It said: “Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day.” It said it opposed “all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage,” which it defined as “a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."

Well, I want to celebrate individuals’ right to free speech, which is part and parcel of “celebrate diversity,” and this case is not a cause for celebration, though it does almost make me cackle with manical laughter.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/11 at 04:58 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages