Did you know about the limits on First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech?

Free speech in a public forum.

What do you think of when you hear those words?

If you joined Club Naive when I did, you probably imagine the ability to speak freely - even when voicing an unpopular opinion sprinkled with a dash of colorful language.

Not necessarily so...

Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton of Kirkwood, Missouri shot-up a city council meeting amid frustrations that his First Amendment rights were unjustly trampled.

(And just so you know, the shooting ended in a worst-case scenario. Thornton killed five before an officer fatally wounded him.)

Thornton was well-known for his regular attendance at council meetings and for his colorful opinions of the Mayor. Looking at some of the transcripts, Thornton may have honestly thought that the Mayor's name was "Jackass." For instance, in May 2006:

Thornton has for years been a regular at council meetings (except for about six months when he was out of town.) During citizen comments, Thornton has taken his allotted three minutes as an opportunity to ridicule city staff and council members, especially Mayor Mike Swoboda and Public Works Director Ken Yost...

Thornton informed Rush that the city has a history of issuing tickets for asphalt equipment used in putting in asphalt driveways.

"Once again, (these are) acts from a jackass from a corrupt city council," Thornton said. [emphasis mine]

The mayor interrupted thanking Thornton for his comments and  telling Thornton he was finished.

Thornton eventually filed a lawsuit for protection of his First Amendment rights since he was regularly silenced during his allotted 3-minutes at council meetings. Thornton lost that case, highlighting allowable limitations on freedom of speech:

But a judge in St. Louis tossed out the suit Jan. 28, writing that "any restrictions on Thornton's speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests."

Hmmm. Reasonable. Viewpoint neutral. Serving government interests. Okaaaaaaaay.

FirstAmendmentCenter.org identifies categories of "freedom" of speech in public forums including: (1) traditional public forum (2) limited public forum and (3) designated public forum. Apparently, Thornton attempted to speak freely in a subclass called "limited designated public forum."

Sound confusing? It is. In Jan. 2008, U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry said this after throwing-out Thornton's case for protection of his First Amendment rights [source]:

“As the meeting was a limited designated public forum, Kirkwood had the right to restrict the topic of discussion to the expansion of two businesses,” Perry wrote. Rather than addressing germane subject matter, “Thornton engaged in personal attacks against the mayor, Kirkwood, and the city council. 

“Any restrictions on Thornton’s speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests,” Perry wrote. “Because Thornton does not have a First Amendment right to engage in irrelevant debate and to voice repetitive, personal, virulent attacks against Kirkwood and its city officials during the comment portion of a city council public hearing, his claim fails as a matter of law.”

I never support murder as a remedy for injustice. Although Thornton and members of his family are recognized as community activists who helped many, he scores no points with me for going Rambo at a city council meeting.

But I also have mixed feelings about what I learned from Thornton's case. His last (wrong) demonstration of activist brought national attention to the language used to limit free speech.

Words like "reasonable" and "serving government interests" open the door for woefully subjective application. Who determines "reasonable?" More frightening, what actually "serves government interests?" These subjective determinations essentially give room to snuff the life of most dissenting opinions.

Question for the Comments:
Do these clarifications of "Freedom of Speech" disturb you?

Comments

[Bob King]

"Hard cases make for bad law." I'd say that the judge was probably correct on the merits of the case, but unavoidably created a situation that will need to be clarified later.

If ever.

After a lot of grief.

Which leads us to the problem caused by people who are unwilling to be reasonable in the first place. And in this I'm speaking both of the City Council AND the activist.

Clearly someone wasn't wrapped very tightly. And if someone is not wrapped very tightly, it's pretty foolish to do things that you KNOW will cause them to unravel further. Like, for instance, humiliate them in a court of law. Not even if you are correct. ESPECIALLY.

[hawa]

Hello, Bob!

I agree that "reasonable" was not necessarily a dominant quality of the council - and certainly not Thorton (who ended the turmoil in the worst way possible).

Perhaps allowing him to finish his 3 minutes (without interruptions based on personal offense) was the answer.

I agree that the judge was probably correct on the merits, altho the foundational definition of "public forum" leaves room for subjective (and sometimes wrong) interpretation that benefits the offended.

Thanks for stopping by!