Montgomery County Government Censors Ads Opposing Question B // ACLU Demands Equal Access for Both Sides

UPDATE: Patrick Lacefield, a spokesperson for Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, has responded to the ACLU's press release and provides new details. The Leggett administration will allow the FOP to run bus ads, but rejects the idea that they were engaging in viewpoint discrimination:

MONTGOMERY COUNTY: The County Executive decided yesterday to make an one-time, specific exception to the County's policy against any outside political advertising to allow the FOP to purchase space. Our standing policy is not viewpoint-based and therefore there is no issue of "censorship." Prior to this exception, the County would not have sold space to outside Pro-Question B advocates either. That has been a consistent policy that the ACLU has never agreed with.

A letter is being prepared by the County Attorney. We had told the ACLU we'd have a response before Thursday but they jumped the gun with a release. The ACLU acknowledges that the County can establish rules governing access to forum in this case (Ride-On buses), including content-based rules, so long as there is no viewpoint discrimination. The County’s rules governing access to advertising space are straightforward: the County, through its contractor, accepts commercial advertising and government-sponsored speech. Those are the only two categories of speech permissible in buses advertisements. There is no viewpoint discrimination within those two categories. The FOP’s proposed advertisement does not fall within either of the permissible categories. It is not commercial speech and it is not government-sponsored speech. Thus, the County properly rejected the proposed advertisement.

If recent accounts by the ACLU are accurate, Montgomery County may have gone too far in its attempts to repeal "effects bargaining" rights (Question B) for members of the county's police union (FOP Lodge 35). Maryland Juice previously reported on Montgomery County's aggressive advertising blitz urging a "vote for" Question B. Their PR offensive included web videos, flyers, email blasts, and more. The FOP called for an investigation of "misuse of taxpayer funds," but some argued that the law permits the County expend resources on advocacy for referenda.

THE RETURN OF CHAIRMAN MOCO 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENSORS POLITICAL OPPOSITION: Today, the ACLU is announcing that the Montgomery County Government is also running "FOR Question B" ads on its buses. But what caught their interest is that MoCo is simultaneously censoring ads from those who are opposing the government's position. Maryland Juice has previously noted a fondness for censorship from the Montgomery County government. Our #1 most-read article of all-time is still our reporting on MoCo's censorship of their employees' Internet searches. See the alarming report from the ACLU below:

MEDIA RELEASE

ACLU Protests Censorship of Political Speech by
Montgomery County Government
Full details at the ACLU of Maryland website: http://www.aclu-md.org/press_room/82

TAKOMA PARK – Concerned that Montgomery County government is unlawfully censoring ads opposing the “FOR Question B” ads that the County itself is running on public transit buses, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland (ACLU) today contacted Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett detailing the constitutional violation inherent in this viewpoint discrimination by the government. The ACLU asked for a quick resolution to the matter, given that the political question at issue will be decided by voters on November 6.

“If the County wants to prohibit political advertising on county buses, it can, but it cannot run its own political ads on county buses and then claim that political advertising is not permitted,” said David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland. “When the government privileges one side of a political debate in a forum open to private speakers, as Montgomery County is doing here, it engages in viewpoint discrimination clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.”

The ACLU’s letter concerns actions taken by or on behalf of the Montgomery County Department of Transportation, Division of Transit Services, in connection with ads that the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 35 (FOP) sought to place on Ride On buses concerning the referendum on Question B on November 6. Montgomery County is currently running its own ads on both the inside and outside of county Ride On buses stating “Who Do You Think Should Run the County Police?  The Police Chief or Union Leaders?  Vote FOR Question B.”  Wishing to respond to these explicitly political ads by the County, the FOP contacted the contractor responsible for managing the advertising program for the Division of Transit services, seeking to run its own responsive ads. Once the content of the FOP’s intended ad became clear, the FOP was told, on two different occasions, that because the ad FOP wished to run was political in nature, they would not be allowed to purchase the space. 

The ACLU letter argues that the County cannot impose advertising rules only on private speakers who wish to express a contrary viewpoint. Because the County ran its own ads with respect to Question B, it must now allow the FOP to speak on the same issue, on the same terms as are available to other private speakers.

Go to the ACLU of Maryland website for more details: http://www.aclu-md.org/press_room/82. The ACLU has not taken a position on the substance of Question B.

###

JPG: Maryland Marriage Equality Opponents Distribute Lawnsigns in Spanish // PLUS: Sam Arora Sighting & More

Below Maryland Juice provides a mash-up of a few interesting tidbits regarding marriage equality (Question 6) and LGBT rights.

JUICE #1: ANTI-MARRIAGE EQUALITY FORCES DISTRIBUTE SPANISH LAWNSIGNS - Maryland Juice photographed a Spanish-language lawnsign that the anti-civil rights forces have been distributing. I guess the rightwing "English-only" push in Maryland is on hold until after the election. Notably, a majority of Latinos now support marriage equality: 52% to 32%. See the divisive sign below (caption courtesy of Juice):

JUICE #2: SAM ARORA READER SIGHTING - Meanwhile, if you're curious what's going on with embattled anti-marriage equality Delegate Sam Arora, you're not the only one. After all, 2014 is just around the corner, and Arora's constituents are still demanding an explanation on his civil rights flip-flop. Unfortunately, many of them still haven't had the opportunity to question him. District 19 candidate debates in 2014 ought to be fun! See the quick field report below:

ANONYMOUS READER: Ghost sighting.... Well, not really, but I was at a debate this afternoon at Leisure World for the school board candidates (At-Large and Districts 2 and 4) when who walked in about 2/3 of the way through but Sam Arora! I was hoping to talk to him afterward and ask him about his gay marriage switcheroo - which he has never explained the reasons for to constituents such as myself -- but he left before the debate was over. Not sure why he was there.

JUICE #3: FLASHBACK TO 2010 // VETERAN TEACHER FIRED FROM BALTIMORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL FOR BEING "UNCHASTE" - A Maryland Juice reader has forwarded us an interesting contrast to the current controversy surrounding the suspension of Gallaudet's "diversity and inclusion provost." As you may have heard, the D.C.-based University is weighing the fate of their employee Angela McCaskill, after she signed a petition calling for the marriage rights of same-sex couples to be put to a popular vote. Arguably, McCaskill violated the school's established "credo" of discouraging "behaviors and attitudes that disrespect the diversity of individuals and groups for any reason including ... sexual orientation."

Many have been quick to defend McCaskill, arguing that her private views and behavior should be protected. But when it comes to individual freedom and free association rights, it appears that many on the right are content to err on the side of protecting those who seek to advance discrimination over those who are the victims of said discrimination. As one example, a reader has sent us a story about a veteran teacher at a Baltimore Catholic school who was terminated in 2010 for being "unchaste." When's the last time you heard of a straight person being fired for the same reason? In any case, below see a quick explanation from our reader, followed by a column written by the fired teacher:

ANONYMOUS READER: See the attached copy of the New Ways Ministry newsletter published in Spring 2010.  Below you will find a first person story penned by April Flores, describing how she was terminated from her job as a teacher at the Sacred Heart of Mary School after administrators from the Archdiocese of Baltimore discovered that she had wed her female partner in Washington DC in July 2009.  She describes a humilitating process of going through a "hearing" to try to keep her job, and includes some of the language that was used in the correspondence that was used to terminate her: “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.”

Seriously, they terminated a 25-year veteran teacher, who apparently was valued by the community she served, because the Archdiocese was "offended", and because she was not chaste.  It is not clear how the Archdiocese knew Ms. Flores was unchaste (hard to imagine how they gathered this data), and interesting that we seldom (never ?) hear of heterosexual folks being terminated due to lack of chastity.

Below, read a column by April Flores, a teacher who was fired from Baltimore's Sacred Heart of Mary School in 2010 (via BaltimoreOutLoud.com & New Ways Ministry):

APRIL FLORES: I’m Catholic and I used to proudly celebrate Catholic Schools Week; however, due to a collision of my religion and my personal life, I did not participate in this year’s festivities. I devoted over twenty-five years of my life to Catholic education and was only married to my wife, Jennifer Simmons, for one month before the Archdiocese of Baltimore (AOB) involuntarily terminated my contract.

GUEST POST: Gallaudet Was Justified in Suspending "Diversity & Inclusion" Provost for Signing Anti-Marriage Equality Petition

Today Maryland Juice has a guest post from a reader about the recent controversy surrounding Angela McCaskill, a "provost for diversity and inclusion" at Gallaudet University. The anonymous commentary is published below, but it is preceded by my own thoughts on the situation. WJLA had the following report about the controversy (excerpt below):

WJLA: Gallaudet University's associate provost for diversity and inclusion, Angela McCaskill -- a 23 year employee, and the first deaf, black woman to earn a doctorate at the school -- has been on paid, administrative leave since Wednesday for allegedly signing a petition to put a same sex marriage referendum on Maryland's ballot November.

Some gay marriage advocates, like Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, are calling for McCaskill to be reinstated. "Everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone has a right to participate in the political process,” he says....  But D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray calls the university's action an "internal matter." “I think it's an issue that's internal to GU and they should decide what is best there,” he says.

THE FREE SPEECH ARGUMENT IS NOT SO CLEAR: McCaskill is now suing Gallaudet and hiding behind free speech principles, while some of the politicians and groups pushing for Maryland marriage equality (aka a "Vote for" Question 6) have been quick to condemn the University's actions. I completely understand the strategy behind why pro-civil rights forces are trying to be "politically correct" about this matter. But since I first heard about this story, I've been very skeptical about the claims that free speech rights are at stake or that they are even at the center of this controversy. To be very clear, I am a huge civil libertarian, but I must point out that McCaskill was not a line-cook at Gallaudet. Her job was to promote a climate of "diversity and inclusion" for young minds, and so it seems to me that there is a strong argument that she voluntarily undermined her ability to carry out her specific job duties.  And the truth is, whether or not McCaskill has indeed crippled her ability to do her job is a matter best decided by the Gallaudet community.

GALLAUDET'S VALUES REVEALED: Likewise, if an anti-abortion organization found out its political director signed a pro-choice petition, I think they too would be justified in reconsidering that employee's future with the organization. But let's take a quick look at Gallaudet anyway. 95% or more of the school's population is comprised of deaf and hard of hearing students. The school's mission statement (approved by their Board of Trustees in 2007) states that Gallaudet "is a bilingual, diverse, multicultural institution of higher education...." But most telling, is that Galludet University also established a "credo" that you should read for insight into the current controversy (excerpt below):

GALLAUDET CREDO: Gallaudet's Vision Statement expresses what the University aspires to become and achieve as the world's premier academic institution for deaf and hard of hearing people. Implicit in our vision are core values that serve as guiding principles for the way members of the campus community teach, study, work and live. The Gallaudet Credo identifies and realizes those core values....

We believe that every person should be treated with civility and that our community is strengthened by the broad diversity of its members. Therefore, we will promote and applaud behaviors that support the dignity of individuals and groups and are respectful of others' opinions. We will especially discourage behaviors and attitudes that disrespect the diversity of individuals and groups for any reason including religion, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, hearing status, or language and communication preference.

GUEST POST: IS AGREEING WITH ANGELA MCCASKILL'S SUSPENSION "OFF MESSAGE?" - In this instance, one could argue that the Gallaudet community's free association and speech rights are being trampled by people seeking to use this controversy to make political statements. After all, it seems clear that the University has pledged to include LGBT students as welcomed members of their community, and they have even stated so in their core documents. But now, Gallaudet's autonomy as a private employer is being challenged. I can tell you this -- if I were a student at Gallaudet right now, I suspect I would be organizing against Angela McCaskill. Apparently so would some of our readers. Below read another Marylander's take on the Gallaudet controversy that provides a different opinion on the debate:

ANONYMOUS GUEST POST: All the pontificating and handwringing about Gallaudet University's suspension of Dr. Angela McCaskill fails to address the elephant in the room that just doesn't comport with staying on message during a political campaign.

Dr. McCaskill isn't just a garden variety employee making widgets. She is an adult with professional responsibility to advocate and protect students who feel harmed or who have been harmed because of their difference. This isn't really an issue of free speech as is so carelessly asserted. Her signature on the referendum petition affirms her intention to take away legal rights from certain people. The same certain people she is supposed to protect and advocate for on the job.

The problem here is that public sensibility is not yet willing to curtail adults’ "deeply held beliefs" in the interest of protecting children. This is a recurring problem.  Recall that not so long ago conventional wisdom eschewed judgment of parents who smoke in their cars with babies present, or spank their children as a means of discipline, or perform "female circumcision" (mutilation) as a cultural norm. Of course conventional wisdom was wrong in each of those cases -- largely because those in a position to judge are also in a position to perpetrate.

Gallaudet is absolutely correct to consider whether McCaskill's private behavior compromises her ability to do her job. Since she must not only be an advocate & protector, she must be credible as an advocate and protector.

The irony here is that the Catholic Church is yelling from the rooftops that their right to discriminate will be infringed if gays can get married.  Isn't that what Senator Nancy Jacobs was worried about during the hearings in the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee -- that bakers with “deeply held beliefs” won't be able to refuse to sell cupcakes to gay couples celebrating a wedding, or anniversary or their children’s birthday ?

We know for certain that the Archdiocese of Baltimore was well within their legal rights as a private employer when they terminated April Flores, a 25-year veteran teacher at Sacred Heart of Mary School, when they discovered that she married her female partner in Washington DC in 2009. This private conduct was perceived to be incompatible with the Catholic school mission statement – and so she was fired.

None of the advocates for the marriage equality campaign can say this publicly because the goal of the campaign is to win. Telling this truth is not palatable to public sensibilities, and it is off message. Those who would boil the Gallaudet situation down to political correctness gone awry are at best misguided, at worst they are abandoning the children they purport to want to protect by passing a marriage equality law. The bigger issue here is the respect for and care of children.  In fact -- it should be the only issue.

What do you think?

Maryland Lawmaker Emmett Burns Tells Baltimore Ravens to Silence Pro-Gay Rights Player // CONTROVERSY ERUPTS

UPDATE: A new Baltimore Sun editorial scorches Delegate Emmett Burns Jr. for his censorship effort. They think he's not fit for office (excerpt below): 

BALTIMORE SUN: That Mr. Burns had to reacquaint himself with the First Amendment ... suggests he has neither the temperament nor the basic understanding of government and law to continue in office. The fact that the use of his office letterhead for the purpose may have violated General Assembly ethics rules only underscores the point....

AN EMBARRASSMENT TO MARYLAND DEMOCRATS - If you haven't heard about the recent controversy surrounding Maryland lawmaker Emmett Burns Jr, you're missing out on one of the most idiotic stories of the year. Hat tip: Todd Eberly of the Free Stater blog. 

Delegate Burns, a Baltimore area Democrat, represents District 10 in the State House. He is also apparently against both free speech and marriage equality. Burns is now the subject of a national, viral news story after he tried to get the Baltimore Ravens to silence one of their players (linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo) for publicly endorsing marriage equality. See a synopsis of the story below.

Baltimore Ravens Linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo is Pro-LGBT rights (source: Instagram)

Here's a brief review of the controversy involving Maryland Delegate Emmett Burns Jr, the Baltimore Ravens, and linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo: