After the hostilities and arrests and mistreatment of Wisconsin citizens under the dome in the Capitol Rotunda this past year…over citizens exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech and free association, whoda thunk that the Governor was such a protector of the right to Free Speech. I bet it’s a big surprise to the Solidarity Singers. Maybe he wasn’t made aware of the shenanigans in the rotunda…or maybe I am naive.
But here it is, right from Governor Walker himself: he signed the new bill making it more difficult to force schools to change their controversial racist or ethnic based mascot or team nicknames in the name of Freedom of Speech!
… Walker said he was concerned the previous law restricted the free-speech rights of school districts to choose whatever team names they wanted.
“If the state bans speech that is offensive to some, where does it stop?” Walker’s statement said. “A person’s or persons’ right to speak does not end just because what they say or how they say it is offensive. Instead of trying to legislate free speech, a better alternative is to educate people about how certain phrases and symbols that are used as nicknames and mascots are offensive to many of our fellow citizens.”
Now agreed that I am not a constitutional lawyer anymore than I am an economist…but does a school district as a unit have a right to free speech?? Or do only the individual citizens have that right?? And at what point is free speech more important than freedom from discrimination? I know I have asked similar rhetorical questions before…but to me this just seems like one government agency instructing another one on better ways to behave…something that the current administration and legislature has never found a problem doing until now.
But I expect the Governor to introduce his alternative education program to teach the us how these phrases and symbols are offensive to other citizens of Wisconsin. I will not be holding my breath.
May I suggest that you change the title of this blog article to “Scott Walker: Defender of Racist Speech” or something like that? I hate to see anything on Blogging Blue, even if it is sarcastic, that makes SW look praiseworthy. We know that in fact his rationale for signing the mascot bill was not a defense of free speech as it is legally understood, since free speech is not an attribute of a government entity. So don’t let his characterization of his behavior give you a headline. The headline must come from your characterization of his behavior, and your characterization of his words.
“Scott Walker declares new constitutional rights for government”
“Scott Walker gives school districts speech rights that he denied individuals”
You get my meaning.
Joanne,
Although I appreciate your concerns, my headline was written to encourage visitors to BB to read the full article…and that seems to be the case…and I would be surprised if many of them missed the sarcastic intent that you yourself identified.
“The headline must come from your characterization of his behavior, and your characterization of his words.” Zach will tell you that I don’t respond well to being told what to do…I am a blogger not a journalist…and I stand by my headline.
And another take from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gov-walker-follows-duck-dynasty-into-whirlpool-over-free-speech-20131220,0,487865.story?fb_action_ids=568085663274339&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B234721320030957%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like%22%5D#axzz2oFxH3gom
Ed, I’m not really trying to “tell you what to do.” My concerns stem from my understanding of “messaging” as described by George Lakoff, a professor at UC-Berkeley (see Don’t Think of an Elephant and The Little Blue Book). If someone did not read the accompanying blog entry, but only saw your headline, they would likely receive a positive impression of SW, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of your blog entry.
Right wing groups have worked years on messaging (SW framing his signing of the mascot bill as “supporting free speech” is an example of such messaging). I believe that the left needs to look critically at everything we put out there, so as not to feed into the right wing co-optation of important American values.
Obviously I wasn’t clear enough before.
John Nichols has a take on the race-based mascot issue and our dear friend D Blaska is trolling for greater recognition or something. Nichols OP worth a read, the comment section, well, you be the judge.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177694/scott-walker-goes-all-duck-dynasty-first-amendment
To bring all up to date: “…Crackdown on Singers Ruled Unconstitutional.”
http://www.afscme.org/blog/sing-a-song-of-solidarity-wisc-gov-scott-walkers-crackdown-on-singers-ruled-unconstitutional
You had me scratching my head with the time-warp, only on my first cuppa coffee. 😉
Thanks for the linkage.