Senate tyrants force their narrow agenda upon private sector (SCANA flag controversy editorial)

The State, Columbia, SC ^ | 22 August 2002 | The State Editorial Board and their au pairs

[Moose4]

SCANA IS A private business, and can do what it wants, within limits. Since it is granted a monopoly in its service region, there are certain areas in which the public has a vital interest in its policies -- rates, bus fares, the Lake Murray dam all come to mind. But when it comes to setting internal policy as to what sort of political expressions are deemed appropriate on company property, that's SCANA's business. The company can discourage Confederate flags in its parking lot or not. That's up to SCANA.

Somebody needs to tell Sen. Glenn McConnell that.

The Senate president pro tem prides himself on being a champion of freedom. And yet he hesitated not at all to threaten to use the power of the state to punish a private company for the values it espouses.

SCANA can't possibly violate anyone's First Amendment rights. SCANA is not the government. In fact, by setting forth a vision of what sorts of messages its parking lots and vehicles should project (if that is what it was doing), it was itself engaging in free expression.

And that is a freedom Sen. McConnell proposed to take away by threatening possible economic destruction of the utility. He said he would ban it from doing state business and remove its monopoly status. Never mind the fact that he could not have delivered on his threat (the Senate rules that he uses to such advantage, which give a single senator power to block legislation, would most likely have been used to stop him in this instance). The fact is, his reputation is such that some people might believe he could do it.

After Sen. McConnell's threat, SCANA Chairman Bill Timmerman sent a groveling letter in reply (in which he assured the senator that he regards the Confederate flag as "a noble symbol"). And after two other neoConfederate senators threatened to oppose SCANA rate hike requests before the state Public Service Commission, the company reversed the bumper-sticker policy. The company did not say it was acting out of fear of public officials, but the sequence of events is intriguing.

And appalling. Whatever one thought of SCANA's policy, the idea that public officials with narrow agendas can bully private companies into doing their will raises the specter of tyranny in our state.

Sen. McConnell is a brilliant lawmaker and parliamentarian. He has done good things for this state. But as a leader, he has a fatal flaw -- his obsession with the "War Between the States." He insists that everyone show respect for all things having to do with that period of history, and more specifically, for his version of it. To fail to do so is to court destruction at the hands of a man whose lawmaking prowess is respected by many, and feared by others.

In a letter to Mr. Timmerman, the senator called SCANA's policies "a slap in the face of the people of South Carolina." This, of course, ignores the fact that many of "the people of South Carolina" applauded when they heard the utility was taking a stand against its property being used to advance Confederate values.

That suggests Sen. McConnell has a selective notion of just who the "people of South Carolina" are. This goes with his selective view of history, and his selective love of free expression.

We knew that few in the State House would stand up to Glenn McConnell. Now we see the state's only Fortune 500 company won't either.

Once again, the bullies got their way -- just by bluffing. It's time we stopped putting up with this in South Carolina.

[Moose4]

Think maybe these people could ever get this hysterical over, say, the erosion of our rights? Klintoon getting Monicas in the White House? Saddam getting chemical weapons? Nope. Only the CONFEDERATE FLAG (cue forboding music!) could be this EEEEEEVIL.

Could somebody please change the diapers of the editorial board at The State, please?

}:-)4

[Moose4]

Gentlemen, if you could ping at will? Thanks.

}:-)4

[stainlessbanner]

Volley!

FReepmail if you want on/off the list

[stainlessbanner]

SCANA IS A private business, and can do what it wants, within limits.

Scana crossed over the line when it infringed on the first ammendment.

I suggest cutting management positions - if these goons have enough time to worry about stickers on cars and create policies on where employees can and cannot eat, they need some workforce reduction at Scana.

[CWRWinger]

...the idea that public officials with narrow agendas can bully private companies into doing their will raises the specter of tyranny in our state.

This article doesn't say anything about how public officials have been scamming and forcing companies to collect Social Insecurity and tax withholding for years. Besides, it's not Sen. McConnell I'm worried about.

Hey Moose, this one really needed a BARF alert.

[stainlessbanner]

SCANA can't possibly violate anyone's First Amendment rights. SCANA is not the government

Where do they come up with this stuff?

[Bob J]

On NOW at RadioFR!

Joining Doug from Upland will be Marsha Richards of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation! The teachers union in the State of Washington does not like the people at EFF. They would love to whack their knuckles with a ruler, give extra homework, keep them in at recess, and give them detention!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show? Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[billbears]

Whatever one thought of SCANA's policy, the idea that public officials with narrow agendas can bully private companies into doing their will raises the specter of tyranny in our state.

The hypocrisy is staggering. You mean to tell me that papers like this, the NAALCP, and the ever racist SPLC with Asa and friends tagging along didn't do something like this to the legislators back in 1999? Oh, but it was the state capitol then!! I guess that makes it alright < /sarcasm>

[southcarolina]

I might have a smidgen more respect for the media if they could at least make an effort to put their own biases aside even occasionally and try to look at issues objectively.
When a corporation, an individual or the government follows PC thinking, everything's OK. Hence, the line "The company can discourage Confederate flags in its parking lot or not. That's up to SCANA.'' You'd better believe, though, that if SCANA had tried to prohibit NAACP bumper stickers on cars in its parking lots The State would have mounted an anti-SCANA campaign almost instantly, with angry journalists fanning out from the paper in a holy crusade against the evil intolerant unenlightened corporate bigots.
It's not too hard to envision a day when government moves to squash free speech by physically shutting down the media. And the citizenry won't say a peep because they know the media long ago traded their legitimacy to be politically correct liberal lapdogs.

[Twodees]

The State Editorial Board and their au pairs

Ahaha...good one, Moose. The State has the damnedest bucnh of mewling sissies writing copy for them that I've ever seen in one gang. The pink diaper brigade is what they are.

[sweetliberty]

"You'd better believe, though, that if SCANA had tried to prohibit NAACP bumper stickers on cars in its parking lots The State would have mounted an anti-SCANA campaign almost instantly"

And therein lies the REAL issue AND the real agenda. Anybody else think that Satan himself is at the helm?

[KrisKrinkle]

From the Article: SCANA can't possibly violate anyone's First Amendment rights.

From Thomas Jefferson: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

SCANA (and anyone else) can certainly violate someone's rights if they exceed the limits of their own rights.

Ban any Confederate Flag representation on the clothing of an employee representing the company to the public: OK.

Ban any Confederate Flag representation on vehicles owned by the company and merely used by an employee: OK.

Ban any Confederate Flag representation on an employee's vehicle that happens to be parked in the company lot: Not OK. This breaches the limits drawn by the equal rights of others.

Government interference in this? You bet. Governments are instituted among men to secure rights and this can involve mediation when rights come into conflict. Particularly when one party to the conflict is stronger than the other. (I know, governments forget this, but it is still one of the reasons they are instituted among men.

[Non-Sequitur]

It's true. A private company can't violate a person's constitutional rights because they don't make laws and it's the law which may or may not violate the Constitution. On the other hand, the SCANA policy may be in violation of a state or local law meant to protect First Amendment rights and that's where you can nail them.

[sheltonmac]

"A private company can't violate a person's constitutional rights because they don't make laws and it's the law which may or may not violate the Constitution. On the other hand, the SCANA policy may be in violation of a state or local law meant to protect First Amendment rights and that's where you can nail them."

Okay, okay, hell hasn't exactly frozen over, but I find myself siding with our Yankee friend on this one. As much as I loathe SCANA's policy, it is a private organization. To allow the state to dictate what SCANA can do would be even worse. No private organization can violate a constitutional right. That's what makes them private. We may not like the policy, but state intrusion on private affairs is one of the things our Confederate ancestors fought against.

On the other hand, I am an advocate of states' rights, and if the people's representatives in the legislature have implemented laws or regulations that would discourage such policies, a case could be made on that basis. I am one of those people who happen to think that the main purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to restrict the federal government, and that it only applies to the states in those specific sections where they are mentioned. After all, the First Amendment specifically mentions "Congress," not "State Legislatures."

[KrisKrinkle]

"A private company can't violate a person's constitutional rights..."

But it's not just Constitutional rights we are concerned with. We are concerned with constitutionally protected rights which predate the Constitution and are not dependent on the Constitution for their existence.

"...because they don't make laws and it's the law which may or may not violate the Constitution."

The law may or may not violate the Constitution, but the Government, it's employees, private organizations and private citizens (or non-citizens) may violate our rights, Constitutional or otherwise.

"No private organization can violate a constitutional right."

Maybe, maybe not. Can a private organization violate a citizen's right to vote? It can certainly violate the Constitutionally protected right to free speech. That's one of the reasons we have laws and governments. To keep those who would violate our rights from doing so. (Constitutions are to keep the laws and governments from violating our rights.) The real fun begins when rights come into conflict.

I see a confusing of concepts which leads to the conclusion that if a private citizen murdered someone he would not have violated their rights because he is a private citizen.

[sheltonmac]

"I see a confusing of concepts which leads to the conclusion that if a private citizen murdered someone he would not have violated their rights because he is a private citizen."

No, in that case there are state laws that prohibit murder. To say that a private organization cannot impose its own restrictions upon the actions of its members is to eliminate private organizations altogether. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I do believe that the state legislatures, acting as the duly-elected representatives of the people, can impose certain regulations that would make hinder organizations from imposing such restrictions on their members. A private organization cannot be subjected to the restrictions set forth in the Constitution for the federal government.

[KrisKrinkle]

"No, in that case there are state laws that prohibit murder."

That still looks to me like a confusing of concepts because it implies that the right to life is dependent upon law. We do agree that the right to life is a natural right, not dependent upon law, don't we?

"To say that a private organization cannot impose its own restrictions upon the actions of its members is to eliminate private organizations altogether."

One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. A private organization is a collection of people acting in a private capacity. The right of a private organization to impose its own restrictions upon the actions of its members ends where the rights of the members begin, always allowing for the fact that the members may cede some of their rights to the organization. When the limitation is merely that a private organization may not exceed its own rights at the expense of its members rights, I don't see how limiting the ability of a private organization to impose its own restrictions upon the actions of its members would eliminate private organizations. (This leaves aside whether or not the 'restrictees' in this case are members of a private organization or employees of that organization.)

"A private organization cannot be subjected to the restrictions set forth in the Constitution for the federal government."

Pretty close. However, our natural rights do not derive from the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to guard against infringement of those rights by the government. As you have noted, the law guards against infringement of those rights by private organizations and private individuals. (That gets messy as the various parties claim the predominance of their rights.) It might be more accurate to say that a private organization cannot be subjected by the Constitution to the restrictions on the infringement of rights set forth in the Constitution for the federal government, but it can be so restricted by other means.

[Colt .45]

'The American philosophy also teaches equality in the freedom of enjoyment of The Individual's unalienable rights, therefore equality in freedom from infringement of those rights by other Individuals (who would, by any such infringement, tresspass beyond the limits of their own equal rights)- freedom in strict conformity with the Constitution, as amended. This applies whether any would-be infringers act as separate Individuals, or in groups, or in formal organizations such as associations of men in the economic realm - for instance, employers' associations, or employees' organizations. If any such violation of any Individual's unalienable rights, or the supporting rights, be perpetrated with the connivance of government-by its sin of omission or commission, by its sanction through either threat or actual use of force, or by enacted law- the offense is all the more anti-moral, anti-Constitutional and anti-American. No allegedly good end can justify the use of evil means such as this, according to the American philosophy's code of ethics and the underlying moral code.

'To be spiritual and moral, this cooperation-in the enjoyment of the right to "Life" and to "the pursuit of Happiness" - must never be in any degree involuntary. It must be wholly free from any element of interference or coercion, direct or indirect, by government or by others. If not voluntary, it amounts to seeking a false goal such as "forced brotherly love" - a concept which is self-contradictory. If not voluntary, it can have no relationship to truly moral and spiritual values underlying the principle of Man's concern for the well-being of his fellow man. The moral and spiritual, as opposed to coercion, are mutually exclusive. Coerced unity, forced togetherness, can only be external and create increased conflict and separateness because true unity, which is inner spiritual unity, is possible only among the free in spirit- among genuinely free men." - 'The American Ideal of 1776 - Twelve Basic American Principles' by Hamilton Abert Long (published 1963)

In other words, the PC whores are NOT allowed to do this!

[stainlessbanner]

In other words, the PC whores are NOT allowed to do this!

I like the Colt .45 interpretation! Good post, sir.