Liberty Lounge by Mike Glenn
The First Amendment is not very confusing: It allows us to speak without the threat of government interference. This is why the actions of the City Council at the last meeting were so disturbing.
Back in July, Councilman Scott Peotter sent out a now-infamous email against gay marriage which caused the City Council to vote to “disassociate” the city from his comments.
This email was from his personal email address, funded by his campaign, clearly indicating that he was acting as an individual. However, select activists and council members proclaimed that his email made it confusing as to whether or not he was speaking as an individual or for the City of Newport Beach, and therefore should be punished by the City of Newport.
So, who was confused? After hours of testimony from the ones who were offended, it was clear: Nobody.
Activists flooded the chambers proclaiming that the “city seal” was the issue, but Peotter only used a stylized photograph of our city seal– which was positioned to the far right of his email, next to a broken drain and a photoshopped image of the city hall with dollars flying from the top of it—hardly something that anyone could mistake as an “official city communication.”
Additionally, it was not the seal itself, but a photograph of the seal. A small, but legally important distinction.
Some council members are still using the city seal in their personal emails to this very day, and some council members used the city seal in their political campaigns. This makes it clear to me that the city seal is not the issue; it was Peotter’s words and opinion which were problematic.
Mayor Ed Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Dixon, and Council Members Tony Petros and Keith Curry all voted against Peotter’s communication, yet more than one council member has used the seal in their own personal communications.
Government is here to prevent everyone from committing acts of aggression on one another, not to grandstand on personal beliefs. If any of these people wanted to make a statement personally condemning the words of Peotter, then they are free to do that as individuals.
However, the moment that they use their government powers to cast a vote to kill, imprison, fine, or shame someone for speech, they have violated the First Amendment, in my opinion.
You may think I am defending Peotter because I agree with his statements. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a small-government Republican, and therefore I do not believe that the government has any role in marriage whatsoever. I believe that marriage is the very definition of a “private relationship,” and in a truly free nation, the government has no role to play in that field.
While I may disagree with Peotter, I am far more concerned with the actions by our local government.
As Voltaire said in the 1700s: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Today, those words could not ring more true.
