Those skeptical that ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ is credible can look to Washington state appeals judge George Fearing’s unusual concurring opinion in a First Amendment case to see how it can be shoehorned into unrelated matters. It shows yet again that those on the Left will laud free speech without truly embracing it.
The September 16th decision involving Judge Fearing begins encouragingly. Dr. Richard Wilkinson was found by the Washington Medical Commission to have violated patient care standards in the practice of medicine related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including his writing on certain blog posts. While upholding the commission’s discipline as to Dr. Wilkinson’s patient treatments, the Washington Court of Appeals dismissed discipline charges as to his online posts. The court found those posts were protected political speech. Judge Fearing wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel in the case.
Fearing, appointed by Democrat governor Jay Inslee, also wrote a separate concurring opinion. It starts ambitiously, extolling First Amendment rights. One soaring line stated “The drafters of the Bill of Rights intended the amendment to protect all popular and unpopular speech, orthodox or heretical views, sublime or profane utterances, and provocative or banal messages.” Fearing defends Dr. Wilkinson’s right to speak. So what is the concern, dear reader?
Reading on, a case of TDS begins manifesting symptoms, despite the president not even being a party to the case. Virtue-signaling constitutional values, Fearing pivots by stating that “Not for more than two hundred years has any President sought to destroy the First Amendment as our current national leader has.” Judge Fearing goes on for several pages in this vein, lamenting that “This President loathes the nature of the First Amendment.” Trump also “criticizes federal judges who rule against him.” The horror! Fearing then prescribes that “The current President has taken multiple and increasing steps to thwart the First Amendment.” To support this notion in the very next sentence, Fearing inexplicably quotes President Trump’s comments where Trump says he will be “protecting free speech.” TDS is a creeping contagion.
As for the Left’s actual opinions regarding free speech, a deep dive into history is in order here. How about President Wilson’s sharp curtailment of free speech rights in enforcing the Espionage Act of 1917? According to author Damon Root, the Espionage Act’s “sweeping language effectively criminalized most forms of antiwar speech” during World War I.
First Amendment speech rights are also married closely with First Amendment freedom of association rights. That brings to mind the Obama administration’s use of IRS scrutiny in targeting dozens of conservative political groups. Judge Fearing may not recall Lois Lerner, but conservatives do.
More recently, see the Left’s musing in The Progressive magazine’s August 4th book review headlined: “Was The First Amendment A Mistake?” Or look to liberal law professors who seek a “reimagining of the First Amendment” in their article titled “Introduction to the Progressive Constitution.” Reimagined for whose benefit, exactly?
And just this week, the U.S. House confirmed that the Biden administration “pressured” YouTube to censor right-wing voices online regarding the pandemic and ‘election integrity.’ As the New York Post’s September 25th editorial notes, “The company simply folded, silencing even perfectly true speech, because the Biden crew demanded it, and [according to Alphabet’s counsel] ‘created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation.’”
These are just a few the Left’s sustained hypocrisies. Judge Fearing’s political detour should not obscure this. Nor should the Left be able to suppress conservatives advocating with conviction and noble purpose. The Left seems to no longer attack the substance of an issue, as they cannot win. Instead, liberalism often begins by nitpicking a conservative speaker’s decorum or expert credentials, gaslighting us to the end. For those of faith, you may hear the ‘leave-your-views-in-church’ lecture. For pro-life men, you may get the ‘you-don’t-have-a- uterus’ screed.
And when all else fails, the radical leftist has tragically shown the bullet to be his only rebuttal. Both the tactics and goals have remained shockingly similar over time. The Left seeks to cancel expression because in expressing things we expose things. In expressing ideas, we can think them through. In speaking we can criticize, analyze a policy’s shortcomings and ultimately choose what our commonsense mind knows to be true. That is a mind awoken to liberalism’s staleness, its lack of true empathy and its dangerous implications. That is why the political Left is the actual force which (quoting Judge Fearing) will “thwart” whatever conservative speech it can.
Alan Loncar is an attorney in Macomb County, Michigan.
