Distant Dome: Free Speech Rights Are Not A Matter Of Perspective

By GARRY RAYNO, Distant Dome, InDepthNH

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The language of the first of the original 10 Bill of Rights is pretty clear.

Government, both federal and state, shall not establish a state religion nor interfere with a person’s practice of his or her religion; shall not restrict free speech, shall not restrict freedom of the press, shall not restrict peaceful assembly, and shall not prohibit a person’s right to petition the government seeking to address a perceived wrong or injustice, particularly on the part of government.

Free speech has always been sacrosanct, with some minor limitations such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one or threatening physical harm to others.

Freedom of speech is often not pretty and the constitutional right is meant to protect what many might consider horrible speech such as language considered racist, misogynist, homophobic, gerontophobic, or hatred for one religious group or another such as antisemitism.

Like all things, perceptions change over time and now we find ourselves in a particularly divisive moment in our history and what constitutes free speech appears to have more to do with politics than constitutional rights.

And the results of people exercising their fundamental right have translated into work suspensions or firings, and physical threats and harassment from the other side of the political spectrum.

It sets up a situation that sounds like “I have a right to free speech, but you don't have that right if you don’t agree with me.”

Far right advocate Charlie Kirk was assassinated last week in Utah adding to the political violence that has been building in this country for some time, but that does not make his death any less horrific as political assassination always is.

But it does mean we have abandoned our longstanding American tradition of settling our differences through compromise and dialogue, not with fists.

The revolutionaries seeking Freedom from British taxation were in two camps in Colonial times, those favoring a peaceful approach led by the businessmen in New York and the Boston rabble rousers facing an occupying British army trying to quell their uprising.

While Kirk sought dialogue with his opponents, he said some harmful things about blacks, homosexuals, Democrats and others he disagreed with which is his free speech right.

But when that same right was used to disparage his activities and political beliefs, people who were on his side wanted those people fired or suspended and they were threatened.

The federal government threatened television networks with the loss of their broadcasting license by the Federal Communications Commission unless late night show comedy hosts were removed from the air.

Teachers and government employees were suspended and businesses fearing the vengeful hand of government fired employees for social media posts.

There are consequences for your free speech right, but that appears to be a more “circle-the-wagons” approach than having an open discussion about what never should have happened.

While the country may have jumped the Rubicon with the heavy hand of government weighing the scales for one side, the slippery slope has been greased in New Hampshire for some time, especially with public education.

And fortunately, the courts have held the perpetrators at bay.

The cultural war on public education began several decades ago with statewide assessments and charter schools.

The divisive concepts prohibition to quell propaganda driven at best, or outright lies at worst, issue of public school indoctrination by Marxists was the next step. The provision was included in the 2021 budget when it failed to garner enough support as a stand alone bill.

The bill prohibited any public school or public institution from presenting any information that would indicate one race was superior to another or had inherent characteristics.

It put a chill on topics such as slavery or events such as the Japanese internment during World War II or anything that had to do with the country’s less than flawless history in areas like voting rights and discrimination.

Last year a US District Court judge found the law unconstitutionally vague with with career altering penalties for educators and forbid the state from enforcing despite attempts of former Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut who put up a complaint form on the agency’s website to report any violations of the law, while the far right group Moms for Liberty put a bounty on teachers reported for violating the law.

Divisive concepts was the state’s first attempt to transform white privilege into a protected class under state law but not the last.

Earlier this year, a provision banning diversity, equality and inclusion programs in public schools including universities and colleges was a last minute addition to the House’s version of this biennial budget and was signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte.

The National Education Association NH, four school districts, and various individuals affected by the law sued.

Schools faced a Sept. 5 deadline imposed by the Department of Education to file compliance reports certifying if they engaged in DEI related activities, used state money for those activities and if they had contracts containing DEI related provisions or they would lose all state funding.

But again the US District Court stepped in and issued a temporary restraining order to block the state from enforcing the law until the federal fudge could act on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say as the case moves forward they will continue to show the bill’s vague bans on programs related to race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability unlawfully chill and censor vital initiatives that ensure equal educational opportunity for female students, LGBTQ students, students of color, and students with disabilities.

They also said the law is expansive and an illegal assault on the rights of all students including those with disabilities who are entitled to special education services, inclusion, and accessibility, all of which were targeted by the law.

And there are more than a few bills to be introduced into the 2026 session that will continue the state’s intrusion into the free speech rights of educators and students including one named for Kirk that mandates public schools to prioritize core academic areas while cultivating “a neutral or patriotic disposition.”

Under the proposed House legislation from Rep. Michael Belcher, R-Wakefield, public schools and government employees would be prohibited from advocating “purposeful division, dialectical worldviews, critical consciousness, or anti-Constitutional indoctrination.”

House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn, sponsored legislation that would limit free speech protections for public school teachers and other government workers if they encourage violence against American leaders and would put their jobs in jeopardy.

The constitution does not say “free speech is protected only if I agree with it,” but that appears to be what the Republican leadership is saying over the last six years about public education.

Maybe they should have to pass the civics test all students must pass to graduate from high school before they can be sworn in as lawmakers.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.

This article first appeared on InDepthNH.org and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.