The most overturned appellate court in the Country will be hearing a case today which has the potential to re-define what constitutes hate speech. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain very much information on this case; however here is what I know:

On Thursday morning, in a special session being held at the Stanford University Law School campus. A critical First Amendment case is being argued before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case deals squarely with the issue of whether Christians have a right to use neutral language in the workplace to talk about same-sex marriage and other issues at the forefront of national debate.

Attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman will be arguing the case before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of an African-American Christian woman who was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland claims that references to the “natural family, marriage and family values” constitute hate speech which is scary to city workers. The Ninth Circuit panel of judges includes two women and one man.

Attorney Richard Ackerman says, “This case has the potential to make a horrible judicial edict that suggests that the only thoughts and words allowed in a public workplace are those that support the homosexual agenda. The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court’s ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment. I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders.” - Source

It will be very interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit will rule on this matter. Our Country is in a sad state of affairs when a case as trivial as this even needs to be brought in front of an appellate court (and possibly the Supreme Court). To believe that the words “family values” constitute hate speech and should not be allowed in the work place, is to believe that the First Amendment only applies to speech which has no potential to offend even one person.

Recent events have proven to us that no matter the words chosen, the potential to offend a person or group is always eminent. When President Bush referred to Obama as being “articulate”, it was offensive to some blacks. Obviously the word “articulate” in and of itself is not a hateful word; in fact to the contrary it is typically used in a complimentary manner.

The Ninth Circuit needs to be very careful in their ruling on this case. A ruling in favor of the City of Oakland could seriously undermine First Amendment freedoms on our West Coast.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Appellate Court, Constitution, First Amendment