Posts
The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Oakland could prevent employees from posting notices referring to "marriage" and "natural family" on the grounds that those terms constitute hate speech. The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Pro-Family Law Center of Southern California filed a free speech case on behalf of the City of Oakland's Good News Employee Association with the United States Supreme Court on Monday. The petition for certiori requests that the Supreme Court undo prior rulings of the Ninth Circuit and United States District Court which held that certain speech by the petitioners could be censored by the City of Oakland. (http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/46.pdf).In United States District Court, Case No. CV-03-03542-VRW, the California federal courts concluded that the terms "marriage," "natural family," and "family values" could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech and in the interest of "administrative efficiency." (http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/45.pdf). Specifically, the City of Oakland banned the use of these terms on postings made to an open bulletin board provided to employees during the same-sex marriage debate in California during 2002 through 2003.
During the same time period, the City of Oakland approved e-mails promoting pro-homosexual social events and an anti-Iraq war "teach-in". Talk of the natural family, however, the City deemed hateful.
h/t: Tongue Tied 3
Previous related posts:
“The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Oakland could prevent employees from posting notices referring to “marriage” and “natural family” on the grounds that those terms constitute hate speech.”
Absolutely false. The ruling says nothing about any specific phrases being “hate speech”. California does not have a law defining “hate speech”.
As Ed Brayton has pointed out, the case was never about “hate speech”:
It might be wise, Mr. Gilbreath, for you to actually read the ruling and compare it to the hyperventilated coverage it gets in the right-wing fringe blogs. It will help keep you from being bamboozled by such claims in the future.
This case is about censoring speech supporting marriage and the natural family as the practical equivalent of hate speech. The City of Oakland has done just that.
I linked to the ruling in my post, and I have read it. True, it does not mention the phrase ‚Äúhate speech‚Äù—but it‚Äôs clear what‚Äôs going on here.
Anyone who thinks this case has nothing to do with censoring speech on the grounds that it is considered hateful is simply na?Øve.
By the by, who is Ed Brayton and why is his take to be considered authoritative, if you don’t mind my asking?
“This case is about censoring speech supporting marriage and the natural family as the practical equivalent of hate speech. The City of Oakland has done just that.”
False. The City of Oakland has defended itself successfully against a suit that employees brought against it. Those employees’ speech has not been censored in the least. They simply do not have the right to use a city-owned forum to carry that speech.
“I linked to the ruling in my post, and I have read it. True, it does not mention the phrase ‚Äúhate speech‚Äù‚Äîbut it‚Äôs clear what‚Äôs going on here.”
Ah. So despite that fact that there is no mention of “hate speech” in the ruling, and despite that fact that there is no evidence that the notices were taken down “on the grounds that those terms constitute hate speech”, you are going to play Kreskin here and tell us what the court was thinking. Okay… what card am I thinking of?
This is the “BECAUSE! I! SAY! SO!” school of “reasoning” so beloved of the fringe right. We are supposed to believe your claims despite the utter lack of evidence to support them? Doesn’t work that way in the real world, sparky.
“By the by, who is Ed Brayton and why is his take to be considered authoritative, if you don‚Äôt mind my asking?”
I didn’t say that Brayton was “considered authoritative”. Once again, read for comprehension. I said that Brayton pointed out that the case was not about “hate speech”. There is no evidence that it ever was about “hate speech”, notwithstanding your fact-free assertions to the contrary.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the US Supreme Court has to say.
SCOTUS may well reverse the ruling… but we don’t have to wait for their judgment to see that the press release put out by the Pro-Family Law Center was inaccurate and deceitful. The Ninth Circuit simply did not “[conclude] that the terms “marriage,” “natural family,” and “family values” could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech”. That statement is an out-and-out lie.
You might want to think about being a bit more careful when you reproduce these press releases verbatim, without investigating whether the statements they make are misleading. Doing less is a disservice to your readers.
Thanks for the tip. Sorry if I don’t find your perspective persuasive.
We aren’t discussing perspectives. We’re discussing facts. Bothersome, isn’t it?
As I understand it from your comments, your perspective seems a narrow legalistic one, whereas my perspective, it seems to me, takes into account the social context in which the case arose and the cultural environment into which the ruling is delivered.
The City of Oakland ordered the material at issue in this case removed because it ‚Äúcontained statements of a homophobic nature‚Äù and promoted ‚Äúsexual orientation-based harassment.” Homophobic speech is generally understood as a type of hate speech; certainly, it is so understood by the homosexual activists who complained to the City about it. Likewise, harassment-promoting materials.
So, the circumstances in which the case arose show that both plaintiff and defendant understood the issue to be hate speech. Specifically, the City labeled defence of marriage and the natural family as censorable hate speech, and plaintiff objected to that characterisation. That is why this case went to court in the first place.
The Ninth Circuit found for the City and against the employees who brought suit. Although the court carefully avoided the crux of the issue, the decision has the practical effect of vindicating the view that defence of marriage and the natural family constitutes hate speech.
The reason for avoiding that issue is, as you pointed out, that California has no hate speech law. To find as the court did on those grounds would be an obvious instance of judicial legislation. Good reason for the court not to go there.
But, again, that is the practical effect of the decision.
And that is why I’d be willing to bet my house that SCOTUS will, once again, reverse an egregious Ninth Circuit decision. (Fortunately, perhaps, the wife would not permit me to be so foolish as to bet our major asset on the outcome of a court case.)
To summarise, a narrowly legalistic perspective of the decision finds no suggestion that hate speech is an issue here; but, I would argue, a perspective which takes into account the circumstances which brought the case to court and the social context of the decision sees hate speech ramifications. Both perspectives are, in their own terms, defensible. Another reason to await the word from SCOTUS.
“As I understand it from your comments, your perspective seems a narrow legalistic one, whereas my perspective, it seems to me, takes into account the social context in which the case arose and the cultural environment into which the ruling is delivered.”
No, your perspective — which parrots that of the Pro-Family Law Center — is based upon a lie: that the court “concluded that the terms “marriage,” “natural family,” and “family values” could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech”. No such conclusion was reached by the court. You will search the ruling in vain for that conclusion — but it seems that doesn’t stop you from helping to spread the lie.
“So, the circumstances in which the case arose show that both plaintiff and defendant understood the issue to be hate speech.”
Show me. Where in any court document do either the plaintiff or defendant state that the issue is “hate speech”?
“Specifically, the City labeled defence of marriage and the natural family as censorable hate speech…”
Show me. Where in any court document does the City label “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”?
“The Ninth Circuit found for the City and against the employees who brought suit. Although the court carefully avoided the crux of the issue, the decision has the practical effect of vindicating the view that defence of marriage and the natural family constitutes hate speech.”
Which party to this case expressed that view? Show me.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. Without the facts to support the opinions, said opinions are based solely on fantasy. Show me that you aren’t fantasizing. Produce the facts.
“The reason for avoiding that issue is, as you pointed out, that California has no hate speech law.”
No. Nothing was “avoided”. The case simply wasn’t about hate speech.
“To find as the court did on those grounds would be an obvious instance of judicial legislation. Good reason for the court not to go there. But, again, that is the practical effect of the decision.
No. The practical effect of the decision was to affirm that the City can control what gets posted on City-owned bulletin boards.
“To summarise, a narrowly legalistic perspective of the decision finds no suggestion that hate speech is an issue here; but, I would argue, a perspective which takes into account the circumstances which brought the case to court and the social context of the decision sees hate speech ramifications. Both perspectives are, in their own terms, defensible.”
False. The claim that the court “concluded that the terms “marriage,” “natural family,” and “family values” could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech” isn’t defensible, because it’s a blatant lie.
Do you often find yourself defending blatant lies?
Do you often find yourself defending blatant lies?
Gotta love that take-no-prisoners rhetoric.
So, if I understand your view correctly, that the City of Oakland removed the material at issue after receiving complaints from offended homosexual employees and that the City denounced said material as ”homophobic” and promoting workplace harassment are merely coincidental and/or irrelevant to the order to remove. The material was ordered removed because some petty bureaucrat(s) got up on the wrong side of the bed one morning.
As for the Good News Employee Association, they decided to sue not because their material was ordered removed, nor because they were reminded that they could be fired for posting such homophobic and harassing material—while remaining convinced that their flyer was neither. No, that is all merely coincidental and/or irrelevant to the decision to sue. They launched their action because their members got up on the wrong side of the bed one morning.
I had heard that American bosses are arbitrary power-trippers and that ordinary American citizens are capricious litigators but, as a friend of our neighbour to the south (and, from where I sit, west), I had always refused to believe such terrible accusations. But apparently it‚Äôs true—with take-no-prisoners rhetoric to boot.
I made none of the claims you attribute to me. You could try reading what I did say, and responding to that… but doing so is clearly beyond your capabilities.
What I said is not “rhetoric”. It is a statement of fact. The claim that the court ‚Äúconcluded that the terms ‚Äúmarriage,‚Äù ‚Äúnatural family,‚Äù and ‚Äúfamily values‚Äù could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech‚Äù is blatant lie.
You won’t discuss that lie. No surprise there.
I made none of the claims you attribute to me.
Then why did the City of Oakland order the flyer removed? Why did the GNEA sue the City?
Show me. Where in any court document do either the plaintiff or defendant state that the issue is “hate speech”?
Well, there’s the Pro-Family Law Center’s notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, filed on behalf of the plaintiff, where this is found on the second page of the pdf document:
There’s this, from the Ninth Circuit Court judgment (p. 10 of the pdf document):
Do you agree that “homophobic” and “promot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment” are usefully summarised as “hate speech”?
Show me. Where in any court document does the City label “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”?
See above.
On a related matter, I think there’s a problem with using the adjective “blatant” to describe the “lie” you allege, and which I dispute. “Blatant” means “glaringly obvious”, but I’ve searched the internet and few seem to see the glare. Besides yours, I’ve found only one reference to “blatant lie” in this context, and it’s by your friend Ed Brayton. I’ve seen several that take the view I’ve presented, including a major daily American newspaper. (”Major” defined as “large circulation”.)
I’m not saying that indicates anything about the veracity of our positions, only about the claim that your view is “glaringly obvious”. Unless one’s definition of “blatant” is “glaringly obvious to those who agree with me”, or some such.
“Then why did the City of Oakland order the flyer removed? Why did the GNEA sue the City?”
Excuse me, but I made none of the claims you attributed to me. Why, exactly, should I try to defend an argument you invented and stuck in my mouth?
“Do you agree that ‚Äúhomophobic‚Äù and ‚Äúpromot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment‚Äù are usefully summarised as ‚Äúhate speech‚Äù?”
No. And the original claim wasn’t that anything could be “usefully summarised as “hate speech”". The original claim was that “The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Oakland could prevent employees from posting notices referring to “marriage” and “natural family” on the grounds that those terms constitute hate speech” (emphasis mine). The ruling wasn’t issued on those grounds. The claim is a blatant lie.
“See above.”
Evasion noted. Still waiting for a citation of the point in any court document where the City labels “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”.
“”Blatant” means “glaringly obvious”, but I‚Äôve searched the internet and few seem to see the glare. Besides yours, I‚Äôve found only one reference to “blatant lie” in this context, and it‚Äôs by your friend Ed Brayton. I‚Äôve seen several that take the view I‚Äôve presented, including a major daily American newspaper. (”Major” defined as “large circulation”.)”
You’ve found several other folks who have been deceived by the blatant lie that you and the Pro-Family Law Center are promoting. That doesn’t magically make the lie into the truth. It simply shows that a lot of people can be fooled when a lie is repeatedly loudly enough and long enough.
Read the ruling. Nowhere does the court state that any words or phrases are “banned”. Nowhere does the court state that the ruling is based on the grounds that any words or phrases “constitute hate speech”. The claims made by the Pro-Family Law Center — the claims that you are here promoting — are blatant lies.
Excuse me, but I made none of the claims you attributed to me. Why, exactly, should I try to defend an argument you invented and stuck in my mouth?
I’m not asking you to defend anything anybody invented. It’s just a question. You’ve asked me questions, I’ve responded to at least a few of ‘em. Now I’m asking you a couple of questions. That’s all.
“Do you agree that “homophobic” and “promot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment” are usefully summarised as “hate speech”?”
No.
If we don’t agree on a concept of hate speech, then this entire thread has been pointless. Both plaintiff and defendant agree that an allegation or actual instance of hate speech is involved (as you asked me to document, and as I did in my previous comment), but now you say you don’t agree with either of them. You would appear to lack common ground with either party to this lawsuit and, without that, how can you understand the conflict between the two?
Also, I’d bet the vast majority of Americans (and Canadians) would agree that statements that are “homophobic” and “promote sexual orientation based harassment” do indeed constitute hate speech. Your disagreement places you in a small minority, I think. (But that’s an empirical question, so I stand to be corrected if there is information to the contrary.)
“See above.”
Evasion noted.
LOL. I assure you no evasion was intended, I was merely referring to the blockquote above. Since you want it spelled out, however, I am happy to oblige:
Show me. Where in any court document does the City label “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”?
There’s this, from the Ninth Circuit Court judgment (p. 10 of the pdf document):
In response to your demand: Show me. Where in any court document do either the plaintiff or defendant state that the issue is “hate speech”?, I cited the plaintiff’s attorney’s notice of appeal. You did not reject that, so I take it I have answered your question.
I criticised your use of the adjective “blatant”, but also pointed out: I’m not saying that indicates anything about the veracity of our positions . . .
Yet you came back with: That doesn’t magically make the lie into the truth.
Now who’s not reading what the other has actually written?
Be that as it may, it is now abundantly clear that your use of “blatant” is, as a matter of dictionary definition, incorrect.
The claims made by the Pro-Family Law Center — the claims that you are here promoting — are blatant lies.
A perfect example of the “BECAUSE! I! SAY! SO!” school of “reasoning” so beloved of the fringe right
“Both plaintiff and defendant agree that an allegation or actual instance of hate speech is involved…”
Where, exactly, did the City “agree that an allegation or actual instance of hate speech is involved”? Document this claim.
“Also, I’d bet the vast majority of Americans (and Canadians) would agree that statements that are “homophobic” and “promote sexual orientation based harassment” do indeed constitute hate speech.”
We already know that your opinions are based on lies, like the one the PFLC suckered you with. Why should this one be any more credible than anything else you’ve claimed?
“There’s this, from the Ninth Circuit Court judgment (p. 10 of the pdf document)…”
Nothing in the excerpt you quote describes the flyers as containing “censorable hate speech”. Nor does it mention the phrases “defence of marriage” or “natural family”. Stop lying.
“Be that as it may, it is now abundantly clear that your use of “blatant” is, as a matter of dictionary definition, incorrect.”
Shorter Gilbreath: “WAAAAAH! Mommeeeee! He’s not using the words the way I want him to!”
The PFLC claims that the Court decided this issue on certain grounds. If one takes the time to read the ruling, one easily sees that the Court did no such thing. How much more blatant does a lie told by someone on your side of the issue have to be before you will class it as “blatant”, mumbles?
I’ve been “suckered” all right—not by the PFLC but by you. I had assumed you were looking for a rational discussion of the issues surrounding the NGEA vs City of Oakland case. As your comments have accumulated, however, it has become evident that you are more interested in gratuitous insults, relentless ad hominem attacks, and your own increasingly histrionic rhetoric than you are in rational discourse.
Your insistent pretence that there is some doubt or disagreement about the content and import of the flyer ordered removed by the City of Oakland appeared, at first, bizarre. Continuing that pretence, as you do in your most recent comment, after we’ve had a couple of go-rounds on that issue, is simply risible.
In my previous comment, I wrote:
You did not disagree, yet you seem to think we should soldier on regardless. That, too, seems bizarre.
To reiterate, there is no useful purpose that can be served if we do not agree on the significance of the terms we purport to discuss, or at least appreciate the serviceability of each other’s understandings. I don’t know about you, but I have better things to do than prolong an acrimonious and now obviously pointless debate.
On that happy note, comments are closed.