August 21, 2008, - 2:49 pm

1st Amendment PC Double Standard Continues: Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee

By Debbie Schlussel
A couple of court rulings from around the country show us who really enjoys free speech in America: the left and Muslims. Anybody who isn’t PC, well your Bill of Rights starts at Amendment #2 (or maybe 3, given the way things are going).
If you wanna sell anti-War t-shirts (and use the names of war dead without their permission or license), your speech is protected. But wear a t-shirt with the Confederate flag on it, fuhgedaboutit. Them’s “fightin’ words.”
Anti-war Ts, Si!:

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked state and local officials from prosecuting a Flagstaff man who produces and sells anti-war T-shirts with the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.
U.S. District Judge Neil Wake said the shirts are “core political speech fully protected by the First Amendment.”
Wake acknowledged that Dan Frazier sells the shirts. But he said the fact an item is sold rather than given away does not strip it of its constitutional protections.

Confederate clothing, Hell No!:

A federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday in favor of a Tennessee school system that banned the Confederate battle flag because of concerns the symbol could inflame racial tensions at a high school.
Students Derek Barr, Chris White, Roger Craig White and their parents said in a lawsuit their free speech rights were violated by the 2005 flag ban at William Blount High School in Maryville, about 15 miles south of Knoxville.
School officials said the ban came after previous race-related incidents that included a racial slur, a fight, a civil rights complaint, a lockdown and graffiti depicting a Confederate flag and a noose.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pointed to those incidents in ruling that school officials had a right to ban the flag because they could “reasonably forecast” that it would cause disruption.
“The school did not merely find the Confederate flag offensive to some students but rather found that in a context of high racial tensions, race-related altercations, and threats of violence, the flag would disrupt the school’s educational process,” said the opinion that was filed in Cincinnati.

Oh, I get it:
If your political speech makes minorities upset, then it’s not protected. But if it offends conservatives, soldiers, families of soldiers, etc., then it’s A-OK.
Hmm . . . I wonder how the courts would rule on a swastika t-shirt in the schools. Let me guess: Protected political speech unlikely to stir problems.
So, to sum up, this speech is protected by the First Amendment:


This is NOT:

Looks like the First Amendment has been Amended.
First Amendment for Me, But Not For Thee.

13 Responses

Exactly! And Debbie – if you were a doctor in California and your religious beliefs forbade you from inseminating lesbians, fudgetaboutit! The California Supreme Court ruled your obligation to serve your patients overrides your right to exercise your religious conscience.

NormanF on August 21, 2008 at 4:36 pm

This is comparing apples and oranges. If a court said selling shirts with confederate flags was illegal, than fine, but that’s not the case.

lolwut on August 21, 2008 at 4:36 pm

All of this PC judicial bullshit will continue, unabated, only until the American people get fed up, and demand impeachment of judges. Of Which in my opine, is way, way overdue!
People have been, and are still being terribly mislead by men in black robes, that for some self invented reason, believe they’re entitled to “judicial independence,” and should be treated differently than any other elected, or appointed official. There is NO such term in the U.S. or state Constitutions, nor in any federal or state statutes.

Jackson Pearson on August 21, 2008 at 4:58 pm

The court is just a t-shirt away from banning the American flag fear that it may offffffffffend immigrants of other nationality. They did it in Britain at soccer games in order to pacify the muslim population there.

American Sabrah on August 21, 2008 at 6:31 pm

That seems so hypocritical. I think both should be allowed or both should be banned

mindy1 on August 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Really? Hmm..Think I’ll design some very offensive anti islam anti muslim anti obama shirts to sell..let them dare try to stifle my free speech rights.

savage supporter on August 21, 2008 at 9:47 pm

This country is getting freer and rfeer by the day! (Provided you’re a muzzie, of course 😉 )
Check this out to see how white-on-“minority” crime is treated differently from minotiry-on-white crime. That’s old news too….

Joe Izrael on August 22, 2008 at 5:17 am

My son refused to turn his T-shirt inside out (Bad Religion-still one of his favs @ 30 yrs old)
when he was in high-school….he couldn’t get it across to them that it was a band and had nothing to do with religion…I was called to the school, stood by my son…and he was suspended for 3 days.

hwy1cat on August 22, 2008 at 5:24 am

Lawyers and their clients want to walk into a courtroom, knowing that they are in a level playing field. Where law is unsettled, it must be settled.
For those who are unaware, the Texas appeals courts sent 3 identical cases in 2 years to the US Supreme Court. The issue in same was: fairness in jury composition. I would say if judges refuse to apply precedent, then they are in breach of public trust. Sack judges who stack the cards unfairly.
One problem in law is that, in English, we treat fiduciary and trust as 2 different concepts. In both Latin and modern French, fudiciare is the sole term used. Richard Posner is the worst offender of the failure to unify the terms.

supercargo on August 22, 2008 at 6:25 am

I recently had a T-Shirt designed that said on the front “I am black and I don’t support Obama!!”, and on the back it said “…Oh and McCain too!”.
And you know I gotten stares from tons of people when they saw the front. It’s as if I’m the enemy, for daring to think outside the box and having my own opinion.
This one guy who owns a Mc Donald’s yesterday told me that I’m “brainwashed” for thinking outside the box. And he’s “dissapointed” in me. Had the gall to bring up 500 years too. See that just shows you the typical obama supporter:
People who are immature to take a opposite opinion, by using emotional and/or death threat0like stares to try to intimidate you all becuase your being an indiviual with your own opinion.

Squirrel3D on August 22, 2008 at 11:58 am

Its not just the kook fringe stuff whether it be on the right or left that attracts negative attention. I was wearing a t-shirt with the California flag on it and got some very rude stares from a gaggle of illegal aliens at the am/pm. I honestly thought they might try to attack me out in the parking lot. I guess anything offends those people…

no_where_man on August 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Love you S3D. A dear friend of mine, almost far right in beliefs, ‘fessed up to me that she was backing BO. I was flabbergasted. She is so principled, it was unthinkable to me that she would support race over country. I still adore her however. I’m supporting McCain but know we could have done much better. His proclivity for the occasional ham-based actions could help somewhat with the relentlessly hostile media. “W” has cojones of steel; one suspects you do as well.

iowavette on August 22, 2008 at 5:25 pm

NWM – During diversity training the in-house instructor really came down on a couple of southern guys who corrected her description of the Confederate flag. She was AA so there was no way they could defend themselves. Being female, I strode in and told her we better figure out where to draw the line quick because many Hispanics were offended by “Old Glory.” Her reply was a rigid, “I’m telling you that there are no Confederate flags allowed anywhere on company property.” Ho-kay.

iowavette on August 22, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field