A number of my posts have been about free speech.((See Free Speech is a Bitch and Free Speech, but Not for All Ideas.)) But my support for that right does not mean that I believe that there may not be reasonable restrictions of the time, place, and manner of the expression of ideas and consequences for violating those restrictions.
On January 6, 2021, a mob invaded the U.S. Capitol during the formal counting of electoral votes that would certify President Biden’s election. The mob was certainly expressing political ideas, but not in a way that is protected by the First Amendment. It sought to disrupt and improperly influence an official proceeding. A large number of them are being prosecuted and some will serve substantial jail time. I have no sympathy for them.
Compare that with what happened in Tennessee on March 30, 2023. Hundreds of protesters, reacting to a recent school shooting, entered the Tennessee state capitol to call for greater regulation of firearms. That is not the bad part. Three members of the state house of representatives: Justin Jones, Gloria Johnson, and Justin J. Pearson, then occupied the well of the House while it was in session and used a megaphone to lead protesters in the gallery.((One of my complaints about the coverage of these events is the lack of detailed factual accounts of what happened. Certainly, Jones used a megaphone, and I have read accounts stating that Johnson did not. Whether Pearson used the megaphone is unclear.)) The “Tennessee Three” sought to disrupt and improperly influence an official proceeding. Two of them were removed from office in consequence.
The disruption of the House session was the anti-democratic act here. It was wrong and even more so because it was done by members who presumably took an oath to support the Tennessee Constitution. On April 6, 2023, the House voted to expel Jones and Pearson; the vote to expel Johnson failed by one vote.
The media coverage has been focused on the expulsions and not the conduct that preceded it. Over the weekend the Star-Ledger re-published the Washington Post‘s story under the title “Experts: Tenn. vote is latest GOP move to stifle dissent.”((The Washington Post‘s on-line version is entitled “Tennessee vote marks latest GOP move to stifle dissent, experts say.” and is behind its paywall.)) I have previously commented that when I see reference to an “expert,” or multiple “experts,” in a headline, it means that the article is going to be a disguised opinion piece.
One can certainly question whether the expulsion of two of the members matched the gravity of the offense. I actually think it a bit too harsh, but not by much. Jones’ response did not help his case. He is quoted as calling the process “unconstitutional,” but of course the reporting of that comment did not specify exactly what constitutional provision was violated. (Perhaps Jones was not clear, but there is no evidence that the authors of the article sought clarity on this point.) He also stated that he did not believe he did anything wrong.
There are also those trying to put a racial spin on the proceedings as the two expelled members are Black and the woman who was not is White. The votes on all three were different,((The vote to expel Jones was 72-25, Johnson 65-30 (failed, 66 votes were required), and Pearson 69-26.)) and you would have to analyze the reasons given by the few representatives who voted differently as to why Johnson was spared. The fact that she did not use a megaphone could have been the difference.
Jay Bohn
April 10, 2023.