Matt Donegan Deserves our Support

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. (link)

There are few words in the history of statements about basic human rights that are more inspiring than 1st amendment to the US Constitution. Yet it is always a mistake to assume that the USA’s founders intended that Bill of Rights couldn’t be suspended at their discretion. After all, the Bill of Rights was written grudgingly, principally by Madison, merely to quiet the critics of the proposed US Constitution in which virtually no individual rights were enumerated. If our nation’s founders really meant “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” when it adopted the Bill of Rights in 1791, then Congress would have never passed the Sedition Act in 1798, which made it illegal to criticize the President or Congress. Some people spent time in jail for violating the law.

If freedom of the speech isn’t considered sacrosanct for the government, it should not be surprising that it gets short shrift elsewhere in the USA as well. We need look no further than Delaware for examples. When Citizen Frank Calio exercised his first amendment rights during his off-work hours, partisan hacks didn’t see a man who possessed an inviolable right of free speech. They saw a political opportunity to attack the State Election Commissioner (Mr. Calio’s job) appointed by a Democrat Governor. Delaware Watch contains the comments of those who preferred political opportunism over freedom of speech.

It is hardly shocking to read that Matt Donegan was fired by his employer for his personal blog entries. Yes, Donnegan was a reporter and, yes, his employer was the Dover Post. But newspapers today like Congress in 1798 have the same desire to control others and the same sense of "free speech." Freedom of speech should exist for them and those whose speech pleases them but not for those who speech might embarrass them. That seems to have been the issue in Donegan’s case:

Matt Donegan, a copy editor and reporter for the newspaper, was fired by Dover Post Editor Don Flood after a reader reported the blog entries to Sussex County radio talk-show host Dan Gaffney….

"I looked at the site, and sure enough it was there. Immediately afterward I verified with [Donegan] that it was his site and this is what he had written," Flood said. "And at that point I fired him."

Flood said some of the blog entries were "extremely offensive and just contrary to what we believe here." (link)

Donegan’s site contains some arguably off-color, sexist and racist comments that the Dover Post could have found offensive. Donegan claims, rightfully from my reading, his site is filled humor and spoof. Although I don’t find Donegan’s humor particularly tasteful, a careful reading of the site, as well as myspace.com in general, indicates that the site is a virtual meeting place for young adults to correspond and flirt with one another principally through wit and humor. I have no idea how old Mr. Flood is, but I know that I am in no position to judge a 24-year-old young man for the rash comments he might make during his off-hours.

And that phrase “off-hours” is critically important because that is what Donegan’s site is about: his off-hours speech, not his speech as a writer for the Dover Post. Although it has always perplexed me that one loses his free speech rights when he enters his employer’s doors, I assumed that once you clock out at the end of the day, your 1st amendment rights are returned to you. But not so in Donegan’s case, not really:

Donegan, 24, said his firing is "a freedom-of-speech issue, and I don't think I was treated fairly in this case." …Editor Flood, however, said the firing is not a free-speech issue.

"He has a right to free speech, certainly," Flood said. However, he added, Donegan's postings were "just so beyond the pale he could not possibly represent us." (link)

It’s truly amazing that Flood wasn’t too embarrassed to make such a transparently false comment. But it’s more amazing that some people in the USA actually believe people can credibly maintain a right even though they can lose their livelihood for exercising it. To illustrate the falsity of the distinction consider a change in the scenario. Suppose Donegan was fired because he attended a synagogue:

Donegan, 24, said his firing is "a freedom-of-religion issue and I don't think I was treated fairly in this case." …Editor Flood, however, said the firing is not a freedom of religion issue.

"He has a right to freedom of religion, certainly," Flood said. However, he added, Donegan's worship habits are "just so beyond the pale he could not possibly represent us."

Had this been the scenario, virtually everyone would say that Donegan’s rights were violated and no one should be fired for the place of worship he attends. Yet freedom of speech is embedded in the very amendment that guarantees freedom of religion:

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. (link)

Clearly, Matt Donegan deserves our support.