Sometime in 1962, a clerk working at the U.S. Supreme Court was sifting through the many mailbags that, each year, brought hundreds of letters asking the court to take up a particular legal case. Most of these letters were highly polished legal documents, prepared by law firms with lots of experience in case law. But on that day in the early 1960s, a clerk, whose name is unfortunately lost to time, noticed a handwritten envelope addressed to SCOTUS from a prison.
Upon opening the letter, the clerk found a letter written in ink and by hand from a prisoner from Florida, who was in jail for a breaking-and-entering charge. His name was Clarence Gideon, and he had asked for a lawyer when he was arrested, but since he was indigent, he was not given one. He was duly tried, convicted and sent to prison.
The Supreme Court took up the case, and would, in 1963, rule unanimously for Gideon. Simply put, SCOTUS ruled people on trial get lawyers. I’ve written about the importance of cases such as Gideon before, wherein a seemingly small case rises in importance as an important Constitutional question is raised.
I thought about Gideon again this week when reading an interesting Colorado Politics story about the goings on in Woodland Park, a beautiful city directly west of Colorado Springs. The school board up there has become a pretty far-right organization, and it appears to be openly hostile to teachers and especially teacher’s unions. The school board has instituted a new policy wherein the board forbade any teacher or other employee from talking to the press or posting on social media about school matters, without the superintendent’s prior approval (emphasis mine). You know, a gag rule.
Not at all surprisingly, there were legal actions taken, and now both sides have agreed to meet with a federal judge down here in Colorado Springs in hopes he can mediate and find a solution. The judge did note, at the outset, the district’s policy had problems.
Can we think for a moment about what the Woodland Park school board is actually doing? They are demanding their employees be mute, with reporters or on their own Facebook or Instagram pages, unless the big boss has specifically told them what they want to say is OK. Oh, and if they do post something about their school on a social media page without permission, they can be charged with “insubordination.”
Lawyers for the board even went so far as to say, “To grant the Union’s Motion would require an injunction that would embolden dissident School District employees to make public statements on social media as official school representatives.” Seriously? Employees who differ with a chosen policy are now “dissident?” Agree completely or you are silenced? Sound like anywhere else in the world you can think of?
Now, to be sure, there are some occupations where such restrictions make sense, at least to a degree. During my own 25-year-plus military career I voluntarily agreed to restrictions on my free speech rights, when it came to policy, nuclear issues, and such. But should employers not dealing with national security issues be able to simply stifle their workers when those workers are disgruntled? Should bosses be able to ensure they are never criticized?
I have long been troubled by those who seek to limit speech, outside of a few tiny areas (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, making false claims in a TV commercial, etc.). I call myself an absolutist on the First Amendment. I’ve always believed the best way to fight “bad” speech is with more and more speech, rather than trying to shut down that speech with which you disagree.
The Woodland Park School Board was taken over by hard-right folks, which is fine given that conservative town elected them, but now that same board seems to be saying they demand their employees never question them, and that they remain above any criticism or remonstration. But that is not the way the United States works, or at least it hasn’t been. And folks who seek to shut down criticism forget times can change, and they might one day find themselves on the other side of the power gap. Are they likely then to believe their rights to criticize can be shut down? Sauce for the goose, so to speak.
At the moment, this case is headed for mitigation, and it is possible the judge involved may be able to work out a solution that both sides accept, even if they don’t agree with it. But I can’t help but wonder if this case is a possible future “Gideon?” If the judge decides, as he hinted, the policy has major problems and unconstitutional implications, might this case end up back in the court system, and perhaps ultimately all the way to the Supreme Court? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Regardless of your beliefs, be you far-right, far-left, or somewhere in the middle, I urge you to be on guard and always uneasy when any government entity seeks to reduce your free speech rights. We can all think of countries wherein the laws make it a crime to criticize the leader. I don’t think too many of us would like to live in those places.
The price of you having your own free speech rights is that you will, from time to time, have to listen to other people’s speech with which you strongly disagree. And please be especially alert to anyone who demands other folks’ free speech rights should be limited to avoid “dissident” behavior.
Free speech can be challenging and frustrating, but it is far better than the alternative. I hope the people on the Woodland Park school board come to understand that, lest a future Supreme Court clerk find a letter from a teacher asking for free speech rights in a mail bag, as even this hard-right Supreme Court would likely find the restrictions imposed to be unconstitutional.
Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/woodland-park-schools-stifle-free-speech-bidlack/article_e112aa4a-5374-11ee-9a96-3f6f8733b658.html
