Posted on 03/08/2007 2:14:19 AM PST by Man50D
A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because that is hate speech and could scare workers.
The ruling came in a case being handled by the Pro-Family Law Center, which promised an appeal of the drastic result.
"We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who along with Scott Lively argued the case for the Pro-Family Law Center.
We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," he said.
"If we fail to get U.S. Supreme Court review, however, it will be up to each individual Christian in the United States to stand up for their rights to be heard on the issues of the day. If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be," he said.
The decision came in an unpublished "memorandum" from the court, and was in a dispute over the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle within the city offices of Oakland, Calif.
It found that municipalities have a right to dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues.
"Public employees are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion by judges B. Fletcher, Clifton and Ikuta, who noted that their writings are "not appropriate for publication."
"The district court appropriately described [the Christians' speech rights] as 'vanishingly small,'" the opinion continued.
However, as the Pro-Family Law Center noted, the court "completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech."
The case had developed when two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests posted a notice on a city bulletin board – after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.
The notice said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values. If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx- xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx
But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting that Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board.
That decision was made even though homosexuals already had been using the city's e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views. In fact, one city official even used the e-mail system to declare the Bible "needs updating," but no actions were taken against those individuals.
The case was argued recently at a special session of the 9th Circuit at the Stanford University Law School.
"The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court's ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment. I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders," said Ackerman.
Ackerman's' firm represents the women and said the Pro-Family Law Center and Abiding Truth Ministries have helped underwrite the thousands of dollars it has cost to fight the city's aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
The idea that an employer can control their employee's speech is not new, but I'm not sure that it can extend to issues not related to their outputs and products.
I'm guessing they cannot create "free speech zones for issues unrelated to their products," and then disallow free speech for contrary positions on those same "issues not related to their output and products."
God, please save us from this madness!
The 9th Circus strikes again.
My bet, the Supremes will strike this one down unanymously, or at worst 7-2(Ginsburg and Souter)...
"True---but this is a case of UNEQUAL application of the rules. One faction (the queers) are openly permitted speech espousing THEIR position on company time with company resources, but the Christians are prevented from doing so. Either let BOTH factions speak, or shut BOTH factions up."
I agree with you but on reading the 9th's ruling I don't see where appellants even raised this issue. Maybe they did in the earlier appeal, but not here.
Sad to say but it's already a thing of the past.
Tsk Tsk Tsk. I believe the word dejeur is
BTW The title of the picture above is:
"fag_train_going_to_fag_town_filled_with_faggots"
I kid you not.
Grr... I hate unpublished opinions. They are an anachronism in a Westlaw/LEXIS era.
It's already happening - there is a case that was just won where a school censored out just that message from a private add bought by the parents of a graduating high school senior.
Another 9th circuit ruling that will be overturned on appeal....
well said
>> Either let BOTH factions speak, or shut BOTH factions up."
>
> I agree with you but on reading the 9th's ruling I don't
> see where appellants even raised this issue.
It was raised at the district court. The judge even called the argument "superficially appealling", but he correctly pointed out that making it a ruling of the court would involve the courts in micromanaging employer/employee relations.
If the women had raised the earlier, offensive, e-mails and postings as offensive to their religious beliefs, they might well have prevailed administratively.
We don't know, because they didn't.
They are often a great source of material which can be freely plagiarized without attribution.
In this case, however, there is nothing worthy of plagiarizing.
What about restrictions on viewpoint discrimination? The government employer was allowing pro-gay, anti-Christian speech>
I sometimes cite 'em anyway. They're at least as valid as a law review article or practitioner's handbook.
Going strictly on the text of the opinion - with no access to the appellate record - this decision seems alright to me. When you're on the clock as a public employee, your free speech rights are somewhat curtailed. Looking at the District Court case (2005 WL 351743), it should be noted that the plaintiff of this case was not prevented from expressing her views on marriage or gay rights outside work, over lunch, or on break. All she was instructed to do was, if she was going to use the City's email system to advertise her group, she had to remove verbiage that could be offensive to gay people.
This all goes back to my central First Amendment theorem - freedom of speech does not guarantee access to a forum. When the government provides a forum, you gotta play by the government's rules.
Government forum rules don't apply to captives of government requirement; i.e., if I'm a patient standing in line at the VA Hospital, I can't be prevented from speaking in favor of George Bush, pro-life, or Jesus Christ.
If I'm a worker in that VA hospital, then, when I'm on the job, I'm to be focused on the hospitals outputs/products, and they can control what I do or what I say regarding their outputs/products (with the important exception of whistle-blowers legislation.)
If, however, they establish a speech policy regarding issues not related to their outputs/products, then free speech is the only acceptable policy. One cannot require "pro-Giuliani" speech when employees speak, for example. And if one variety of speech is allowed in break areas, as dialogue through the work day, etc., then the counter opinion cannot be prevented. Violent speech is a police issue, and racist/vulger speech is handled by social ostracism that results from a bad reputation.
You can get away with that in Law School. Don't ever try it in an appellate brief. Just steal the arguments as if they are your own, but if you cite an unpublished case for any authority you can be sanctioned.
This all goes back to my central First Amendment theorem - freedom of speech does not guarantee access to a forum. When the government provides a forum, you gotta play by the government's rules.
True, but the government's rules must be even-handed. In this case the fags (bassoon players) are free to push their in-your-face ANTI-CHIRSTIAN agenda, but any legitimate response to it, such as a memo about "family values" is visited with potential or real governmental sanctions against the author.
That the courts could view the word "family values" as being harassment or discriminatory is the part of this opinion which is most disturbing. This is a clear illegal infringment upon free speech.
More complex than that, at least in the 2d Circuit. You can cite any summary order dated after Jan. 1, 2007. Older cases cannot be cited for purposes other than estoppel or res judicata.
Sometimes, if it has a really useful turn of phrase (or if it is exactly on point), I'll cite it as "an unpublished opinion with limited precedential value" or something like that. The judges I've worked with prefer that I note it that way rather than pretend it doesn't exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.