Our View-Student to test First Amendment protection in court

Somebody needs to slap some duct tape over that student’s mouth for making an ideological public display. No, wait, that wouldn’t be American would it?

Tragically, it’s not a hypothetical scenario; it’s a partial reality.

A student at Los Angeles City College tested his free speech rights in the classroom and was slapped down for doing so. The class was public speaking. The topic of Jonathan Lopez’s presentation — as if it should matter in a college setting — same-sex marriage.

Soon after California voters passed the highly emotional and controversial Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in November, Lopez delivered his speech opposing same-sex unions in front of the class and his professor.

Because the professor, John Matteson, allegedly disagreed with the context of the speech, Lopez was cut short. Matteson purportedly called Lopez a “fascist bastard,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lopez, a self-described Christian, has filed a lawsuit claiming his First Amendment rights were violated, setting off yet another explosive discussion over the fine line between offensive speech on a public campus and freedom to express religious views.

Part of the problem is that Lopez’s speech was part of an open-ended assignment, meaning there were few parameters set on the tone and topic. This is compounded with the student’s perceived, as the L.A. Times reported, “religious duty to share his beliefs, particularly with other students.”

The First Amendment is the most tested and contested legal inclusion to the Constitution. Every letter, ideal, clause and punctuation mark has been taken to task in one way or another since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Part of the college experience is to share and experiment with ideas and the only way to support a student, no matter if one agrees or disagrees with their views, is to let them freely explore and practice.

It’s widely accepted that the First Amendment comes with both rights and responsibilities. For instance, the Supreme Court has placed some restrictions on free speech.

Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the majority opinion in Schenck v. United States, where speech was deemed limited if it creates a “clear and present danger.” The decision was that the Supreme Court would not protect, for example, someone “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

There are other constraints on free speech, such as hate speech that might cause violence, blocking access to the public right of way to public property, etc.

It doesn’t seem, however, that Lopez was shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, er, classroom. The L.A. Times also said that in a letter, two students stated they were “deeply offended.” That’s hardly a reason to limit a free exchange of ideas either.

Because Lopez played the religion card, when he tried to find out how he did, Matteson supposedly said, “ask God what your grade is.”

We hope Matteson takes his own advice because this could end up costing him lots of cash.