|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Rep. Anne Donahue
Scholar and political activist Noam Chomsky is quoted as saying, “If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all.”
Hopefully, no one despised the individuals speaking at the statehouse last week, but many certainly despised their message.
The Vermont Family Alliance hosted a speaker in a pre-reserved public meeting room to discuss the subject of “de-transitioning.” Some saw this as a direct affront to those who have undergone gender transitions. That same day, transgender activists were holding a celebratory event outside the statehouse.
Transgender supporters entered the meeting room where the de-transitioning speech was scheduled and disrupted it with singing, dancing, and shouting that drowned out the speaker. The disruptions were so significant that the Sergeant-at-Arms shut down the event.
The ACLU has used the term “heckler’s veto” to describe situations in which a louder voice is allowed to silence others through disruption. In this instance, the protesters effectively silenced the speaker.
Legislative leaders praised the disrupters, seemingly believing that supporting the dignity and rights of the transgender participants required endorsing their actions. However, they appear to have confused support for transgender rights with support for the silencing of those who hold opposing views.
The statehouse is open to the public for the we of diverse viewpoints, but that right comes with the requirement to respect others. The Joint Rules of the House and Senate clearly outline acceptable public conduct, stating that those present must refrain from “loud or unusual noise” or any behavior that would “disrupt essential governmental operations.”
The rules assign the Sergeant-at-Arms the duty to supervise public conduct and maintain order within the statehouse. In this instance, the Sergeant-at-Arms interpreted her responsibility by requiring everyone to leave — not just those causing the disruption — thus allowing the opponents of the speech to successfully shut down an otherwise orderly event.
In this case, belief in the legitimacy of the transgender cause led to the endorsement of behavior that clearly violated these rules — loud noise and deliberate obstruction was used to silence others.
Legislators may have been unhappy with the fact that equal access meant the public meeting room had to allow for a group with an objectionable message. But by expressing solidarity with a “disrupter’s veto,” they became complicit in the suppression of that message.
Legislative leaders would do well to heed the words of the ACLU, which defended free speech even in the deeply offensive protests at a funeral that led to the 2011 Supreme Court decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443 (2011)
Suzanne Ito of the ACLU stated:
“To be clear, the ACLU strongly disagrees with the protesters’ message in this case. But even truly offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment.
“As ACLU Legal Director Steven Shapiro explained to NPR:
‘The First Amendment really was designed to protect debate at the fringes. You don’t need the courts to protect speech that everybody agrees with, because that speech will be tolerated. You need a First Amendment to protect speech that people regard as intolerable, outrageous, or offensive — because that is when the majority will wield its power to censor or suppress…’”
The Supreme Court in the Snyder case observed that “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful,” noting that “this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled.”
Ito concluded in her comments:
“It is in hard cases like this where our commitment to free speech is most tested, and most important.”
Last week’s events at the statehouse presented such a test. A message seen as questioning the legitimacy of transgenderism was deemed intolerable and offensive, and the response was to praise those who suppressed it through deliberate disruption.
Our commitment to free speech was tested — and we failed.
Anne Donahue is an Independent State Representative from Northfield.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
Can the individuals that allowed this fiasco to occur be censured? If so, Let’s do it. Nail them.
“Our commitment to free speech was tested — and we failed.”
Well, at least the majority is consistent. They do a lot of that.
I have been upset about this event all week, and have been unable to find the time to sit down and put it in writing. Representative Donahue perfectly expressed it. Well done.
I have been very upset about what took place last week and how it was poorly handled. Capitol Police should have been allowed to remove JUST the rude and inappropriate disrupters. That would have allowed the group that had reserved the room to proceed with their program.
Thank you Anne.
Thank you for the way you have distilled and presented this issue Rep. Donovan.
You have long been one of the few voices of reason and common sense in the Vermont legislature.
P.S. sorry for the name mis-spell…we know who you are.
I congratulate Anne D for a thoughtful and well reasoned piece.
It is encouraging to know we have at least one legislator under the golden dome who has not lost all rationality. It’s great that the problem can be articulated based on constitutional principles.
There is another way to describe the disrupting protestors, the lack of policing by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the legislators’ support for the disruptors rather than the injured party: they are all woefully immature.
If the public who put them in power can not understand principles and rationality, we need to call them out for the childish imbeciles they are. They deserve a hard spanking and a sentencing to bed without supper.
Donahue is one of my Reps, and she does an amazing job.
Well written Anne: Thanks for all you do for us.
I believe the other group had reserved the room should have had complete control over who could be in the room. Please think about what I am going to say. This had nothing to do with speech and everything to do with fairness. Would a Rep or Senator or a committee leader allow this to happen during a hearing? If you answered no, why would should it be allowed it to happen to a private group? This means one group had control of the room, and had a right to be there, they reserved and, therefore, had a say in who could come and go in the room they reserved. the Capital Police should have removed everyone who didn’t have permission to use the room. This has nothing to do with anyone’s free speech; it has to do with who had control of the room, and that I believe would have been the ones who reserved it. One last thing, the democrats condone this type of behavior, I as a 4th gen Vermonter don’t condone this type of childish behavior, and that is exactly what it is, this is the face of the democratic party. Every time I see a protest I don’t even have to look to see who it is, I know who it is and so do all adult voters, it’s the democratic children doing the work of the adult democratic’s. The Dems will continue to lose seats until you realize adults vote not kids (they also judge behavior and who is adult enough to make laws) they are the face of the Democratic party. People including politicians should start being sued for definition anytime they make a statement in public that they can’t prove, ABC and CBS are finding this quite expensive. A Vermont voter!!
Yes, the room was reserved.
However, after I complained, to the Sgt at Arms exactly your point, her words to me were:
“It is a public room and anyone has a right to be here”.
She went on further to explain, to me:
“they ,(the protestors), are not breaking any laws and they have a right to free speech “.
When asked about our right to free speech. Kessler had no reply.
It was an awful display on many counts.
Anne: very well stated indeed.
But what is going to happen now? Strongly worded, articulate letter that clearly states as everyone can plainly see, they did not defend our state constitution, to which they were sworn to uphold and defend as representatives.
See this is where things go awry. Because they have a majority, literally a disruptive mob, this is what the connotational republic was set up to defend against.
There will be even fewer strongly worded letters, notice the highest offices have said and announced…..NOTHING….because they are ok with it. Don’t want to upset the marxist gang running Montpelier and ruining our state.
Something needs to be DONE. Even the simple interviewing of all the people in the house and senate to get their responses, would be something. You could even set up a voluntary kiosk for members to come and join in the conversation, film it…….and you’ll see nobody wants to speak about it.
Why?
Because the most vulnerable to cancel culture, orchestrated, surely by ten people who set the entire vermont agenda before session want compliance. Our people are not free to vote as they see fit, they have to vote as they are told by their handlers or be cancelled. It would be a wonderful experiment. I think even Guy would be stunned by the response, he’d probably be thrown out, for violating something, surely for exposing the truth.
Here is a very VERY important point that Anne missed in her otherwise, well done commentary.
The fourth paragraph about transgenders entering the room is misleading.
The transgender protesters DID NOT enter the room and drown out the speaker. They had commandeered the room BEFORE THE SCHEDULED SPEAKER HAD EVEN STARTED!!!
They had brought in their own sound system along with dancers and other protesters and Vermont Family Alliance and SPEAKVT had absolutely no chance of even starting their presentation.
The transgender protesters claimed the speakers for detransitioner awareness day were discriminating against them and giving out misinformation. HOW COULD THIS EVEN BE TRUE WHEN NONE OF OUR SPEAKERS EVER GOT THE CHANCE TO SPEAK??!!!
This is key!!! The Sgt. at Arms had to have known protesters were in the room and yet she DID NOTHING TO THWART THE DISRUPTION!!
I am so angry when I think about the way we all were treated on that day. I’m not asking for revenge but only that justice be done. AND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR TREATMENT BE CALLED OUT AND PUNISHED!!!!
Censuring and firing should both happen here. Sargent at arms should be gone period. Did not do their job. Our state house is nothing more than a glorified zoo. Disgusting