Authorized by Congress in 1992, Religious Freedom Day is recognized every January 16th by an annual presidential proclamation commemorating the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786. Two days later this year, with so many on the Supreme Court bench intent on releasing restrictions on religion and on how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendment’s guarantees, Shurtleff v. Boston comes before them, raising important questions about free speech.
The case...
...addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on [one of three flagpoles] outside City Hall, where Boston has ... displayed many secular organizations’ flags [for special occasions].
The case ... also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study in my work on free speech and the First Amendment.*
Case background
Boston permits groups to request [temporarily flying their flag in place of the city flag] alongside the American and Massachusetts [flagpoles] at City Hall to mark special occasions [such as] from the Chinese Progressive Association and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation.
In 2017, Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-based organization, requested to fly the Christian flag, which [some Protestant churches display,] as part of a planned event “to celebrate the civic contributions of Boston’s Christian community.” The organization says its mission is “to enhance understanding of our <big>Judeo-Christian</big> moral heritage, our American heritage of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of free enterprise.”
>
Judeo-Christian, huh? I don’t see a magen David on that flag. Do you? The plaintiffs illustrate & embody one free-speech issue that will NEVER get a hearing anywhere: the hijacking, plagiarism, and distortion of Judaic scripture by Christianity, for gain, for 2,000 years and counting. Is this a separate, irrelevant issue? Hardly. Getting away with that was the first among global tramplings setting a two-millenia precedent of the special rights of Xianity that others worldwide want too, with Xianity wanting even more in the US alone. AND Camp Constitution just may claim that they DO represent multiple religions so that flag is their right to fly at city hall. They as good as said it in that phrase and in their name. So, as Jean Muir said, everything’s connected to everything ... <big>Back to the main event:</big> |
The source article‘s* author, an expert on applied philosophy of law, goes on to report that Camp Constitution sued the city — Boston twice denied the request, citing the establishment clause of the First Amendment which bars the government from favoring any religion above others. Any flag flying at that building is government speech, not private speech, justifying the city’s decision, according to a federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
So, Camp Constitution took it to the U.S. Supreme court to decide “who is speaking” if that flag flies there, and whose free speech rights are protected.
Among possible outcomes,
- if the “public forum doctrine” prevails, it’ll mean only Camp Constitution is “speaking”, and the ruling would likely favorCamp Constitution.
- if the government speech doctrine prevails, the ruling likely would uphold the city of Boston.
So, Camp Constitution took it to the U.S. Supreme court to decide “who is speaking” if that flag flies there, and whose free speech rights are protected.
Evidence for Camp Constitution: Boston has approved 284 flag requests and apparently denied none.
Evidence for Boston: no previous religious flag requests and only two types so far —“flags representing territories, nations and ethnicities, and flags associated with publicly recognized days of observance, such as Veterans Day and LGBTQ Pride Month— which don’t constitute (sorry) making city hall a “designated public forum”, hence it ain’t.
Read more about these doctrines at the source article* — it appears that sometimes they conflict and sometimes they’re in accord, based upon the past history of cases, interpretations and precedents.
The article author is Mark Satta
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from Purdue University and a JD from Harvard Law School.
Mark specializes in epistemology, philosophy of language, applied philosophy of law, and First Amendment Law. His work has appeared in Philosophical Studies, Analysis, Synthese, Episteme, the Buffalo Law Review, the Harvard Law & Policy Review, and the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, among others.
*wik page on the website The Conversation.
More discussions about
Shurtleff v. City of Boston
and
You can sign up at the link to get alerts for when it’s online and for when it’ll air on C-span networks.