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.