The Tyranny Of The Doodoo Heads

Are judges doodoo heads? I’ve often thought so, but I need firm evidence. I know that I cannot rely on standard journalistic methods to discover the truth here. For one thing, I am not even a journalist, although I play one weekly in this corner. As such, I’m not about to ask for the expert opinion of ill informed, well dressed and properly coiffed spokespeople from both sides of the issue. I need evidence. At heart, I am a scientist. And as such, I prefer to design experiments that test my hypotheses. And so, I would like to conduct the following experiment. But, it would require the cooperation of the Lewiston City Council, or any other city council for that matter. I propose that Lewiston pass an ordinance that forbids burning flags that exceed 2 square inches in area. Once that is done, the ACLU and the courts will do the rest.
My thesis is not frivolous or without foundation. Judges have issued a number of rulings lately that are entirely inconsistent with the opposing hypothesis - that judges have brains. For example, just the other day the Oregon State Supreme Court held that live sex shows violated the free speech protections of the Oregon Constitution. The justices argued that the constitution’s operative clause, "No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever," protected the right of two people (more or less) to have sex in public.
I guess this is what is meant when liberals refer to constitutions as “living, (heavy) breathing” documents. I cannot find in any legal penumbra where two people having sex are speaking, writing, printing or in any way expressing an opinion on any subject whatsoever. But the justices imagined that they do. I wish they could have told us what opinion was being expressed. That would have made interesting reading.
On the other hand, 2nd District Court judge Jeff M. Brudie in Idaho decided that Lewiston definitely could limit Cliff Wasem’s freedom of speech by forcing him to reduce by about 90% the size of a political opinion painted on a building he owned. Cliff Wasem believes that we should get out of the United Nations. True, it’s not quite as flamboyant as ardorous Oregonian’s opinions, but it’s certainly less ambiguous.
Political speech has not done well lately. The United States Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which most certainly does restrict freedom of political expression. But the court has a long track record of defending any form of obscenity as protected free speech.
The man who wishes he were in his second term as president just this last Wednesday expressed his opinion that too darned many of us were expressing opinions these days. He declared that democracy was at risk because too many people like me are keeping an eye on the mainstream press these days and have created a climate of fear in newsrooms around the country. He calls bloggers, “digital brownshirts.” He must really regret having invented the internet, just as the 16th century Catholic church would have preferred that Guttenberg had not invented moveable type.
When a former vice president and near president expresses such disdain for the First Amendment, you know things are bad. He generally treats the Second Amendment more respectfully.
At Washington State University, free speech has been taking a beating of late. Last spring the university purchased tickets for 40 hecklers to attend a play for the precise purpose of disrupting the performance. This autumn, a student in the College of Education was threatened with dismissal for disagreeing with the concept of affirmative action when that takes the form of racial preferences, and because he wore a camouflage hat to class one day.
His opposition to racial preferences is in accordance with Washington state law. He owns a camouflage hat because he is a hunter. But one of his instructors equates hunters with white supremacists.
If judges will accept a law that permits a city to restrict the size of a sign that Cliff Wasem uses to express his opinion, then shouldn’t they also accept a law that restricts the size of flags that may be legally burned? How judges handle that exploding cigar should reveal the contents of their skulls.