Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The 2018 Jefferson Muzzles
The 2018 Jefferson Muzzles
2017 was a perilous year for free speech in America. The Trump administration continued its campaign to vilify and delegitimize the press. Hundreds of white nationalists, many wearing body armor and carrying weapons, descended on Charlottesville, Virginia for what the event’s organizer claimed to be a free speech rally, but which immediately devolved into chaos and tragedy. College students nationwide sought to silence unpopular speakers on campus by shouting them down and disrupting otherwise peaceful events. But when we look back on 2017, it will likely be remembered as the year in which both protest speech and anti-protest rhetoric simultaneously rose to levels not seen in decades.
Protest speech has always been central to free expression and protestors have shaped much of our understanding of First Amendment law in the courts. One case in particular, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, illustrates how the battles fought 75 years ago remain relevant to this day. In Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag, noting famously that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Last year, however, was one in which countless voices, high and petty alike, openly condemned unorthodox speakers. The most prominent example of this trend was, of course, the treatment of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and dozens of other professional athletes who were personally attacked by the president, legislators, team owners, and the public because they chose to protest racial injustice by kneeling as the national anthem was played before games. The response to these protests may not have violated the First Amendment, but it unquestionably demonstrated a widespread disrespect and disregard for free speech values.
The rejection of longstanding free speech norms is a recurring theme among the recipients of this year’s Jefferson Muzzle Awards. At all levels of government, we observed actions meant to silence unpopular and unorthodox voices, often in direct contradiction of clearly established laws. This year’s awards, then, are our small act of protest against those high and petty officials determined to treat this fundamental feature of free speech as a flaw.
KEARNEY HIGH SCHOOL (MISSOURI)
Upon receiving their yearbooks last summer, students in the Kearney High School class of 2017 were greeted with page after page of colorful senior portraits accompanied by personal quotes, selected by each graduating senior to memorialize their time at the school. At least, that’s what moststudents found. Joey Slivinski and Thomas Swartz saw only their pictures and blank paper where their quotes should have appeared. School officials had removed both students’ quotes without warning or explanation, but to Slivinski and Swartz, the reason was clear; both were openly gay and had submitted quotes alluding to their sexuality. Swartz, wanting to leave his fellow students with a message of openness and acceptance, wrote “If Harry Potter taught us anything, it’s that nobody deserves to live in the closet,” while the dapper Slivinski joked “Of course I dress well, I didn’t spend all that time in the closet for nothing.”
{snip}
OREGON STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
When Mats Järlström’s wife received a ticket triggered by a red light camera near their home in Beaverton, Oregon, his natural curiosity was piqued. After some preliminary research, Järlström became convinced that the formula used by the state to set the length of yellow lights—unchanged since 1959—failed to account for contemporary traffic behavior. Specifically, he concluded that Oregon’s timing formula ignored the effect of cars turning right at intersections, resulting in yellow lights that were objectively too short. Based on these findings, Järlström developed a modified version of the formula and began sharing his results with members of the scientific community, government officials, and the media.
His efforts were well received by most, but the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying had a much different reaction. Not only was the board uninterested in Järlström’s ideas, they also launched a full-blown investigation into his actions, alleging that he had engaged in the unlicensed practice of engineering.
After an inquiry lasting two years the board fined Järlström $500, ruling that because he was not a state-licensed professional engineer, he broke the law by openly critiquing the length of yellow lights and discussing his ideas with members of the public. Adding insult to injury, the board further instructed Järlström that he could not refer to himself as an “engineer,” despite the fact that he holds a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden, and has decades of work experience in a variety of technical fields. According to Järlström, this prohibition amounted to an “unconstitutional ban on mathematical debate.” We agree wholeheartedly.
Mats Järlström never claimed to be a state-licensed engineer. He merely identified an existing problem, studied it, and offered his findings to those in a position to rectify it. The First Amendment guarantees him the right to debate any and all subjects—even those of a technical nature. By investigating and punishing Järlström, the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying sought to bestow upon a privileged few a monopoly over the exchange of technical ideas. As a result, we bestow upon them a 2018 Jefferson Muzzle.
{snip}
2017 was a perilous year for free speech in America. The Trump administration continued its campaign to vilify and delegitimize the press. Hundreds of white nationalists, many wearing body armor and carrying weapons, descended on Charlottesville, Virginia for what the event’s organizer claimed to be a free speech rally, but which immediately devolved into chaos and tragedy. College students nationwide sought to silence unpopular speakers on campus by shouting them down and disrupting otherwise peaceful events. But when we look back on 2017, it will likely be remembered as the year in which both protest speech and anti-protest rhetoric simultaneously rose to levels not seen in decades.
Protest speech has always been central to free expression and protestors have shaped much of our understanding of First Amendment law in the courts. One case in particular, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, illustrates how the battles fought 75 years ago remain relevant to this day. In Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag, noting famously that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Last year, however, was one in which countless voices, high and petty alike, openly condemned unorthodox speakers. The most prominent example of this trend was, of course, the treatment of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick and dozens of other professional athletes who were personally attacked by the president, legislators, team owners, and the public because they chose to protest racial injustice by kneeling as the national anthem was played before games. The response to these protests may not have violated the First Amendment, but it unquestionably demonstrated a widespread disrespect and disregard for free speech values.
The rejection of longstanding free speech norms is a recurring theme among the recipients of this year’s Jefferson Muzzle Awards. At all levels of government, we observed actions meant to silence unpopular and unorthodox voices, often in direct contradiction of clearly established laws. This year’s awards, then, are our small act of protest against those high and petty officials determined to treat this fundamental feature of free speech as a flaw.
KEARNEY HIGH SCHOOL (MISSOURI)
Upon receiving their yearbooks last summer, students in the Kearney High School class of 2017 were greeted with page after page of colorful senior portraits accompanied by personal quotes, selected by each graduating senior to memorialize their time at the school. At least, that’s what moststudents found. Joey Slivinski and Thomas Swartz saw only their pictures and blank paper where their quotes should have appeared. School officials had removed both students’ quotes without warning or explanation, but to Slivinski and Swartz, the reason was clear; both were openly gay and had submitted quotes alluding to their sexuality. Swartz, wanting to leave his fellow students with a message of openness and acceptance, wrote “If Harry Potter taught us anything, it’s that nobody deserves to live in the closet,” while the dapper Slivinski joked “Of course I dress well, I didn’t spend all that time in the closet for nothing.”
{snip}
OREGON STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
When Mats Järlström’s wife received a ticket triggered by a red light camera near their home in Beaverton, Oregon, his natural curiosity was piqued. After some preliminary research, Järlström became convinced that the formula used by the state to set the length of yellow lights—unchanged since 1959—failed to account for contemporary traffic behavior. Specifically, he concluded that Oregon’s timing formula ignored the effect of cars turning right at intersections, resulting in yellow lights that were objectively too short. Based on these findings, Järlström developed a modified version of the formula and began sharing his results with members of the scientific community, government officials, and the media.
His efforts were well received by most, but the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying had a much different reaction. Not only was the board uninterested in Järlström’s ideas, they also launched a full-blown investigation into his actions, alleging that he had engaged in the unlicensed practice of engineering.
After an inquiry lasting two years the board fined Järlström $500, ruling that because he was not a state-licensed professional engineer, he broke the law by openly critiquing the length of yellow lights and discussing his ideas with members of the public. Adding insult to injury, the board further instructed Järlström that he could not refer to himself as an “engineer,” despite the fact that he holds a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden, and has decades of work experience in a variety of technical fields. According to Järlström, this prohibition amounted to an “unconstitutional ban on mathematical debate.” We agree wholeheartedly.
Mats Järlström never claimed to be a state-licensed engineer. He merely identified an existing problem, studied it, and offered his findings to those in a position to rectify it. The First Amendment guarantees him the right to debate any and all subjects—even those of a technical nature. By investigating and punishing Järlström, the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying sought to bestow upon a privileged few a monopoly over the exchange of technical ideas. As a result, we bestow upon them a 2018 Jefferson Muzzle.
{snip}