Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion in the infamous Janus case – an opinion explicitly aimed at reducing the rights and political capacity of American workers. The opinion claims to be defending free speech. In fact, true freedom of speech is the last thing the signers of this opinion have in mind.
In his opinion, Alito sanctimoniously condemns compelling a person to subsidize the speech of others. He even quotes Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical.” However, Janus wasn’t compelled to subsidize the union’s political views. He had the lawful right to opt-out. Even more, he had the right to opt-in. He could have joined the union, worked to shape its political commitments, even run for office in his local.
Compare Janus’s situation to the real cases of compelled speech in America today. Millions of tenants have to watch their rents being used to pay for landlord organizations that promote policies tenants despise – policies that would reduce them to virtual serfdom. They can’t opt-out or opt-in. Their choice is pay or take their family to live in a homeless encampment. Or consider the case of cancer patients whose exorbitant payments to pharmaceutical companies for life preserving medicines enable those firms to lobby for laws that keep drug prices outrageously high. Those patients would love to have the options available to Janus. Their choice is literally pay or die.
But there is more in the Janus opinion that reveals the Court’s disinterest in freedom for the poor, minorities, or workers. The opinion acts as though it is a long settled issue that people cannot be actually compelled to mouth support for views they find objectionable. Surely, the drafters of the opinion cannot be unaware of the common scenario in which a business’s employees are literally marched into a City Council meeting and – like automatons – are forced to recite the company’s position. To Alito and his colleagues, this compulsion is perfectly legitimate.
The opinion’s signers also act as if “the right to speak freely” – to state one’s views without penalty is also fully protected. They should talk to the thousands of workers fired for expressing their views. They should interview the tenants evicted for speaking up at a meeting or handing out a leaflet in the public square. They might even think about that most fundamental element of political speech – the right to vote – a right denied to large numbers of people of color in state after state – as a direct result of this Court’s actions.
The Janus opinion reveals a message far different than the high-minded language of its author. The message is that in the Court’s perspective, freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to members of privileged races, religions, and economic strata. The rest of us have the right to say “Yes Sir,” and do what we’re told.
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments