The Phoenix Network:
 
 
 
About  |  Advertise
 
News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In
WFNX_1000x50g

Sotomayor's mixed message on free speech

Freedom Watch
By HARVEY SILVERGLATE  |  June 3, 2009

090605_sotomayor_main
Minutes after President Barack Obama announced that he was nominating appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, battle lines were drawn on the pre-scripted questions of "post-racial" America: will she favor minority groups or judge all citizens equally? Will she treat alleged criminals and other down-and-out litigants with "empathy" (the Beltway buzzword du jour) or take a hard-line approach? And will she be a "judicial activist," or will her decisions hew to the text of the written law (so-called strict constructionism)?

But missed in these debates is Sotomayor's stance on a basic tenet of American liberty: freedom of speech, without which all other rights are functionally meaningless. One might attribute the press back-burnering her focus in this area of law to Sotomayor's relative lack of decision-making on First Amendment cases. But, more likely, this reflects the modern bipartisan disregard for free speech — a right strongly valued from Thomas Jefferson to George Carlin, but one that has steadily eroded over the past four decades. Still, it is essential to consider how Sotomayor, currently a judge on an intermediate federal appeals court in New York, stacks up on free speech. Initially, a mixed picture emerges.

Most disturbing is Sotomayor's signing onto an opinion written by one of her colleagues in a May 2008 case limiting the speech rights of public-high-school students. Avery Doninger, a student-council officer in Connecticut, got into a tiff with school administrators who canceled a student-initiated band competition. Doninger lambasted the administration on (in the court's words) "an independently operated, publicly accessible blog," saying the event was axed "due to douchebags," and asked readers to phone school officials in protest. Her strategy worked, enraging those officials who said that "appealing directly to the public was not an appropriate means of resolving complaints the students had regarding school administrators' decisions." For this, Doninger was not permitted to assume the class office to which she had been duly elected.

The decision was a betrayal of the Vietnam War–era Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), in which the justices protected the right of students to wear a black armband protesting the war: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Since then, however, free-speech rights of students and adults alike have been whittled down by Supreme Court justices both liberal (some have allowed fundamental political speech to be controlled in the campaign-finance arena by federal bureaucrats, a development that Sotomayor praised in a 1996 speech) and conservative (the court's right wing has largely targeted high-school-student speech touching upon either sex or drugs, as well as student newspapers). Sotomayor's signing onto the Connecticut Doningerv. Niehoff opinion doesn't provide any confidence that she would seek to roll back the tide of censorship, though she did, in a 2006 Vermont case, uphold the right of a 13-year-old student to wear a T-shirt critical of George W. Bush. Does this signal a pattern that allows students to engage in political speech but not in harsh criticism of school administrators?

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: Benign neglect?, The 13th Annual Muzzle Awards, Review: Let Freedom Sing! Music of the Civil Rights Movement, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Politics,  More more >
| More

ARTICLES BY HARVEY SILVERGLATE
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   TAKING THE PLEDGE IN BROOKLINE  |  September 13, 2011
    Freedom Watch
  •   A LIBERTARIAN'S VIEW OF THE BARSTOOL/BRADY CHILD-PORN FIASCO  |  August 25, 2011
    Sophisticated First Amendment scholars, lawyers, and media commentators, all of whom are strongly free-speech/free-press supporters, were critical of Coakley for allegedly engaging in a legal bluff — the veiled threat of possible prosecution under the state's child-porn statute — to convince Portnoy to remove the offending and exploitative image from his site.
  •   HOW THE ARROYO JURY GOT IT RIGHT  |  August 25, 2011
    Rarely has a Boston jury had to suffer as much ridicule as the 12 citizens who acquitted former Boston firefighter Albert Arroyo of pension fraud.
  •   2011 MUZZLE AWARDS: CAMPUS EDITION  |  June 29, 2011
    Law school is not known for being fun, so some professors spice instruction with far-fetched hypotheticals. To some students at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware, one longtime criminal-law prof's hypos went too far.  
  •   CURBING CORRUPTION WITH A CATCH-ALL  |  June 24, 2011
    Sal DiMasi is no saint, but that doesn't mean he's a criminal. His behavior makes us grimace, but it simply doesn't amount to a state or federal felony.

 See all articles by: HARVEY SILVERGLATE



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2012 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group