Free speech can still be offensive speech. Here’s why | Miraldi – Poughkeepsie Journal

Rob Miraldi| Special to the USA TODAY Network

Patricia Dilascio and her daughter, Andrea Dick, live in Roselle Park, New Jersey 15 minutes from Newark Airport, 40 minutes from New York City.Theyre supporters of former President Donald J. Trump.They think he won the last election, that it was stolen. Which a lot of people believe although it is kind of like saying the earth is flat.

But they wanted to declare their anger and everlasting support for the former President and so they put up four posters on their property: [Expletive] Biden, Socialism Sucks, Biden Blows, and Joe Biden Sucks. Their opinion was clear.

But the boroughs officials took offense at the F-word, in part, because an elementary school was around the corner.Not that kids havent heard that word before, but understandably one might not want to have them see it every day on the way to school. The town sued and a judge agreed, saying, "Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right. We cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech.

And he is correct but he misses the forest for the trees.

This Roselle Park family is angry at the political outcome and, above all, the First Amendment allows people to vent their political opinions and criticize their government.

They dont like President Joe Biden.Fair enough.

There is a troubling aspect to protecting their speech, however, and it has nothing to do with their opinion.After all, government cannot discriminate against any opinion.But can they try to keep some sense of decency and decorum in the public forum? In this case, it is not the opinion that is offensive, but the language, the dirty words that upset so many people.

And the crude language, the hostility in our relationships, the coarsening of the culture it is all spreading like another virus with no vaccination in sight.In Kokomo, Indiana, Brandon Adams was told to take down a flag he put up in September. It read, [Expletive] Biden and [Expletive] you for voting for him! He was upset that the president had told a federal agency to mandate vaccinations for employees. A heated and legitimate issue, for sure.It was the F word that led to the cringing, not the opinion.

Citing a town law that bans statements, words, or pictures of an obscene, indecent, or immoral character, such as will offend public morals or decency, Adams was facing a $1,000 a day fine.

For subscribers: In a Jersey suburb, a vulgar flag sparks a battle over free speech

So, what takes precedence decency or free speech? Or are they so intermingled as to be inseparable?

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in back in 1971, when Paul Robert Cohen walked the corridors of a California court with the Vietnam War still raging wearing a jacket emblazoned with [Expletive] the Draft. He was arrested, charged with maliciously and willfully disturb(ing) the peace or quiet of a neighborhood.

But he was not really looking to curse out anyone in particular, similar to the New Jersey and Indiana protestors. He just displayed what the Court daintily called this unseemly expletive while also making an important statement. It was, clean and simple, political speech which has always gotten the highest level of First Amendment protection.

When he wore the jacket in 1968, forced conscription to the military the draft was controversial and despised by a generation, especially so during an unpopular war that was increasingly questioned as a fiasco with no real purpose. The use of the F-word spoke to the depth of the opinion about a conflict that would kill 58,000 Americans and cost $25 billion a year.

At first blush, the austere Supreme Court said, this case may seem too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitutional significance.

And that is why I take it up: [Expletive] Biden is the new rage. Its chanted at football and baseball games; its on mugs and t-shirts and bumper stickers. Search Amazon and youll find dozens of items with this logo as well as dozens with the same profanity directed at Trump.

Comedian George Carlin called it one of the most interesting words in the English language. The only word that is referred to as the F-word. One magical word just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.

And the Supreme Court recognized this.

It conveys not only ideas, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well, wrote Justice John Harlan.

When you attach the word to a political message, it is powerful indeed.As Carlin pointed out in his famous Seven Dirty Words comedy sketch, it is the word you save for the end of argument: [Expletive] you and everyone that looks like you.Its meant to be offensive and as the court put it, emotive.Stirring deep emotions.

If the word was used in a public setting in a purely sexual way, we might have a different discussion about whether its protected.But the banners and flags under fire were about politics, not sex.The idea that Trump won the last election is absurd, frankly, but it is not up to the government, nor me, to decide if that message should survive.The marketplace of ideas decides what speech survives.Even if the F-word is attached.

But is there no limit to how we can be assaulted with words without the government policing the public sphere, acting as guardian of public morality?

The Court answered: We are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech.

Only an invasion of substantial privacy would lead to government intervention. And these posters are not it. hey are protected political speech. So long as it is peaceful.

Hear that, Jan. 6 protestors?

The Supreme Court understood that the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. That the air may seem filled with verbal cacophony, however, is not a sign of weakness but of strength.

Indeed, as Justice Felix Frankfurter has famously noted, one of the rights of citizenship is the ability to criticize public people and policy and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation."

Maybe, just maybe, if we spoke in more civil terms, protestors could be convinced to take down the offending word.

Roselle Park ultimatelyrelented and dropped its sanctions againstDilascio.

You cant legislate being a good neighbor, says Roselle Park Mayor Joe Signorello. I hope, personally, she takes down the indecent signs because its the right thing to do.

And moral suasion might help, but overriding the First Amendment is not the solution.

Rob Miraldis teaches journalism at the State University of New York. He can be reached via Twitter @miral98 and e-mail: miral98@aol.com.

See more here:
Free speech can still be offensive speech. Here's why | Miraldi - Poughkeepsie Journal