The Freedom Bulletin

Every day on the way to work, I pass not too far from the tent city created by the Occupy Boston protesters. It covers an entire block of the Greenway, a public park, and contains a food tent, logistics tent, legal tent, media tent, Gandhi statue, fire alarm, security volunteers, and of course countless signs and banners. I decided to pay it a visit on a couple of occasions, and it’s an interesting place – except for one person who yelled at me for taking a picture (maybe a bit of hypocrisy given Occupy’s enthusiasm about the First Amendment?).

The residents of the tent city were certainly diverse. There were lots of teenagers and young adults, many middle-aged and older people, and even a little kid or two. Some people fit the grubby hippie stereotype, while others looked like the average person you’d see on the street. On one occasion, a man addressed a large crowd of protesters. On another occasion, people marched with signs and flags down a nearby street. And on another, a large group of people sang while others played drums. Protesters held signs by busy Atlantic Ave during the evening commute, a man on a bicycle distributed apples, staffers of the food tent doled out supper, people took part in religious ceremonies, and at all times various people just milled around, sitting alone or conversing with each other.

It’s hard for me to decide what I think of the Occupy movement, because they don’t have any official leader or official platform. They are generally considered a left-wing movement due to some of their widely held beliefs, such as higher taxes on the rich, forgiving student loans and other debt, health care for all, and a stronger social safety net. But the Occupiers do have some things in common with the Tea Party movement. Neither is fond of the Federal Reserve, and in general both are all about the rights of everyday people and against the status quo and centralized authority, whether that be big banks or big government. I even saw a Gadsden flag, widely regarded as a Tea Party emblem, in the Occupy Boston tent city.

WikiLeaks noted these similarities, tweeting, ”Grass roots Tea Party, Republicans, Libertarians must continue to join #occupy. Keep it central: 99% vs corrupt institutions, patronage” and then added, “#occupy Don’t fall into the trap of more taxes. The security state will just spend it on their pals. We need accountability, local taxation.”

Regardless of what you think of Occupy, it’s never right to argue against a political movement by insulting its members with offensive stereotypes. But that’s what far too many commentators, many of whom I usually agree with, are doing. Howie Carr called them “spoiled rich kids,” and “trust-fund hippies,” and ridiculed their names, ages, hometowns, and occupations. Michael Graham dubbed them “clueless college anti-capitalists” and accused them of “stealing all the soap in the South Station bathrooms.” How exactly do they know these things?

Even if I don’t agree with them 100%, I’m glad that the Occupy movement is around and welcome their contributions to political discourse across the world.

Last week federal judge Marcia Cooke overturned the Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act, a Florida law restricting doctors from asking people about guns unless there is a compelling medical reason.

The debate over this law involves an interesting conflict between the First and Second Amendments. The founding philosophy of America (and one that I strongly believe in) is that people have the right to live their lives however they please, as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do the same. The right to bear arms is part of this and is specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, and so is freedom of speech. One person’s right to free speech should only end when another person’s liberty begins. But where exactly do you draw the line?

In my opinion, speech designed to pressure another person into acting as you want them to violates that person’s right to live their life as they please. Doctors, motivated by the desire to make people healthier, are one of the biggest culprits of this. When doctors ask people questions, or tell them what to eat, how much to exercise, or what medical tests to have, they are not using physical force, and people are not obligated by law to comply. But I still believe that this is coercive and therefore should not be protected by the First Amendment. Due to doctors’ elevated status in our society, it is difficult, if not impossible, especially for shy people, to refuse to answer a doctor’s questions or to decline medical procedures that a doctor firmly instructs them to have. Doctors need to treat their patients more like customers, only performing the medical procedures that the customers indicate they want and only giving advice when it is asked for. This might sound like a radical proposition, but a customer’s gun ownership is not a doctor’s business, nor are their eating habits, exercise, emotional state, sex life, drug use, or really any aspect of their life. What we need are more laws restricting doctors, however well-intentioned, from using their authority to pressure people into giving up their privacy rights or their freedom to live as they choose.

The Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act doesn’t even go as far as the laws that I would support – it still allows doctors to ask about guns if there is a compelling medical reason, and it doesn’t outright ban such questions but merely says that doctors “should” refrain. It was wrong to overturn this law. Florida Governor Rick Scott is appealing the decision, and I hope he prevails.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that people have the right to videotape and record police officers performing their duties. The ruling came in the case of Simon Glik, a Boston lawyer who filmed police arresting someone on Boston Common. He was charged with disturbing the peace, aiding in the escape of a prisoner, and illegal wiretapping, as he recorded audio of the arrest without permission. The charges were (thankfully) dropped, and Glik sued law enforcement officials for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals agreed with him, writing:

“Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.”

Read the rest at MassLive.com.

Remember when the FDA decided to require all cigarette packages to display graphic warning labels? Five tobacco companies  - R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands, Ligget Group, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co – are suing in federal court to stop this. Although tobacco companies are far from sympathy-evoking, and although they are almost certainly motivated at least in part by financial gain in this lawsuit, the fact is that they are right. These warning labels are paternalistic and are an affront to individual liberty.

The lawsuit reads,

“Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products.”

It continues,

“This is precisely the type of compelled speech the 1st Amendment prohibits.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Manufacturers should not be allowed to put lies or deceptive statements on packages. It even makes sense to require companies to provide factual information about their products, such as ingredients, risks, and benefits, on packages. But these labels – graphic pictures of diseased lungs, caskets, and dead bodies – go far beyond providing information. They are propaganda designed to disgust people and make them avoid smoking. They are also paternalistic because by requiring them, the FDA has decided against giving people the facts and allowing them to make their own decisions, and decided instead that people should be emotionally manipulated into doing what the FDA thinks is best for them.

It would be bad enough if the FDA displayed this insulting propaganda on government property or purchased advertisements with its own resources. But the new policy requires private companies – in fact the very companies that the warnings are targeted against – to use their resources to display the FDA’s propaganda. Requiring cigarette companies to speak the government’s message – an insulting, paternalistic, and anti-liberty message at that – is a violation of free speech rights.

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Westboro Baptist Church’s protests at military funerals are protected by the First Amendment. The WBC is the extremist religious group, led by Fred Phelps and composed largely of his extended family, that believes that the deaths of soldiers are God’s punishment to America for its acceptance of gays and lesbians. Not an idea I agree with, to say the least, and one that is extremely offensive and hurtful to many people, especially the family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq and whose funeral the WBC picketed.

But the Court decided that the Snyder family is not entitled to monetary compensation from Phelps and his organization. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion:

“Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

Contrast this with France’s legal response to fashion designer John Galliano’s alleged anti-Semitic rant. He was charged with “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race, or ethnicity” and faces up to six years in prison for saying things like “I love Hitler” and “your forefathers would be gassed.”

Although the First Amendment protects unpleasant speech, I am thankful for it. Opinions should not be banned merely because they are offensive to many people. Extreme, radical, and even wrong views such as those of the Phelps family and anti-Semites, have a role in public discourse simply because diversity of opinion is a good thing. I would rather live in a world where people are allowed to express all kinds of views, even those that I find offensive and wrong, than one where people are forced or pressured into uniformity of thought.

Full Supreme Court ruling (PDF)