John Wylie: Content Discrimination
The current session of the Legislature seems to include multiple bills regulating speech by content, which to me raises serious 1st Amendment issues. The following is the text of an official legislative press release issued late Wednesday afternoon:
OKLAHOMA CITY – The full Senate has given its approval to a measure codifying the authority for cities and towns to adopt ordinances enabling the painting of blue lines and the posting of signage in support of law enforcement. Senate Bill 834, by Sen. Darrell Weaver, R-Moore, was approved on Wednesday.
“This legislation simply clarifies that these displays are appropriate, permissible, and it also reflects the Senate’s support for law enforcement,” Weaver said. “I think law enforcement today has been under attack. I was in law enforcement for three decades, and I can tell you, these men and women are heroes who put their lives on the line every day to keep us all safe.”
A pro-police group in New York City filed a lawsuit against Mayor Bill de Blasio this past August, saying he had violated their First Amendment Rights by blocking a mural from being painted outside police headquarters. News reports stated the organization had intended to pay for the cost of the mural privately.
“I believe Oklahoma towns and cities should be able to honor law enforcement,” Weaver said. “My legislation simply ensures that authorization is in statute so there is no question about it.”
SB 834 next moves to the House of Representatives for further consideration. Rep. Ross Ford, R-Broken Arrow, is the House principal author.
For more information, contact Sen. Darrell Weaver at 405-521-5569 or email Darrell.Weaver@oksenate.gov.
I'd have no problem with uniform state standards for all street and building murals which fall under government purview as long as they are based on logical and non-content oriented criteria such as avoiding traffic hazards, prohibiting such murals being placed on the property of another without the property owner's express permission (whether the property owner is an individual, corporation or government entity). But this seems to simply regulate street murals by saying that art supporting police is automatically given special protected status as free speech, a right afforded no other art. Seems more like an iced over ski run than merely a slippery slope. Would love to hear others' thoughts. This will be an issue for at least the next few years and offers a great opportunity for discussion and education on what the First Amendment is and is not. I've spent my life supporting what I believe are First Amendment values, and I've never seen any version of "You're free to say anything you want that supports my views but keep your mouth shut about any criticism of them you may have." I don't think at a gathering of the Founders the person mouthing that idea would be more likely to be greeted by a Tavern Trounce rather than a Minuet in G.