LA Times Gets it Wrong on Hate Speech Codes

The LA Times has a horribly shallow article with the headline "Chrisitans sue for right not to tolerate policies". The article discusses a suit against Georgia Tech's hate speech code and then lumps in a vast range of policies, some private and some public, from hate speech codes to anti-discrimination laws to diversity training workships.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

And she's right, Georgia Tech's speech code is clearly unconstitutional and should be struck down. But then the article goes on to lump this suit together with a buffet table of other issues as though they were all the same:

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

Those are all very different issues and it's absurd to pretend that only Christians are against some of them. I'm not a Christian and I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights, but I'm absolutely opposed to hate speech codes. When they take place at public universities, they are clearly unconstitutional. At private universities, they are legal but abhorrent and I'll be happy to speak out loudly against them.

But does that mean there can be no laws against "harrassment"? Or course not. The law correctly recognizes that there are forms of harrassment that are not protected (repeated phone calls, threats of any kind, stalking, etc) even if they are verbal speech. It also doesn't mean there can't be laws against discrimination in many contexts, such as laws that forbid government contracts from being given to companies that discriminate.

On the other hand, is it unconstitutional for a private company to have a hate speech code? Absolutely not. Does it mean a private company can't require its employees to attend diversity training seminars? Absolutely not. Don't like it? Find another job. And the folks quoted in the article get it equally wrong when they lump all these things together:

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Again, this is painting with far too broad a brush. Yes, you are free to think that gays are horrible people condemned to hell if you like. You're free to profess that in church all you want. You're allowed to profess it in letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, blog postings, webpages, or in any public forum you like. The first amendment prevents the government from punishing you for your opinions, no matter how loathsome (and rightfully so). But that doesn't mean you can't be fired for it if you do it on company time. These are all distinct issues and it's absurd to combine them all together.