When Freedom of Speech and "Hate Speech" Collide

It's not surprising that in the midst of picketing of Marines' funerals and plans to burn Qurans that the Supreme Court has had the question of how the constitutional right of free speech still applies in growing swell of incidents where people are calling for greater action against actions and speech that are considered to be hateful or offensive. Or put another way, our country is becoming increasingly polarized in terms of perspectives, views and values and the First Amendment may very well be caught in the crossfire between the sanctity of free speech and the growing instances where one group of people feel their civil rights are being violated.

I think Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer had it right when he made it clear that when it comes to speech and expression, things that we as individuals or a society may find morally wrong or ethically wrong must be protected as a fundamental protected right. This is going to become all the more critical as the diversity of thought and belief continue, and groups understandably use the law as an end around to marginalize those who believe differently then they do. The fundamental definition of "hate speech" is likely going to evolve depending on the epicenter of societal norms.

The case in Michigan assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell cuts to the heart of the matter. Shirvell, in a personal blog he kept outside of work, "lambasted 21-year-old Christopher Armstrong as a racist with a 'radical homosexual agenda.'" Shirvell, who is in some hot water given the context of his beliefs and his state position, is just one of a number of people who similarly under scrutiny for their actions outside of work. I'm not defending Shirvell or other people cited in the article (a state trooper who was a member of the KKK and a NJ Transit employee who burned a Quran), but I am concerned about the deprivation of people's livelihoods (and the government's tacit approval of this) based on nothing that goes on at work and a person's personal conviction and beliefs.

The issue then becomes: even if we agree that freedom of speech, even "hate speech" is protected from criminal prosecution, to what degrees to public or private employees reserve the right to punish that speech (done outside the workplace) through censure or termination? And when there's growing threat that a Christian biblical interpretation of marriage is being viewed as hate-mongering, how would that be different that any discriminatory hiring practice which has the same effect of penalizing orthodox Christians?

Depending on how the winds of change continue to go, the message will be clear for those who have "unpopular" beliefs or convictions: If you value your job, you'd better keep those beliefs to yourself.