A full-court press on free speech

In the heat of the moment, emotions can break out on the field of play. This is a fact of life in competitive athletics. But at a recent Phoenix Suns game, an altercation erupted not on the court, but in the seats, and the trigger wasn't basketball, but Arizona's new immigration law. The incident is likely a portent of things to come with the Grand Canyon State as the front line in the struggle to secure America's borders. As the battle develops, the constitutional right of free speech must not become a casualty.

When the Suns hosted the San Antonio Spurs several weeks ago in the first round of the NBA Western Conference playoffs, two fans wore bright orange "Viva Los 1070" T-shirts as they took their expensive, courtside seats. The message was an obvious statement of support for Arizona's new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070. The measure, which takes effect July 28, simply mandates state enforcement of existing federal immigration laws. The loud shirts were also a pointed rebuttal to the Suns' recent act on May 5, Cinco de Mayo, when the team sported game jerseys emblazoned with "Los Suns" in solidarity with the law's opponents.

Arena security guards approached the pair and ordered them to either remove their shirts or face ejection. When they refused, the guards escorted them from the arena. When the fans appealed to the head of security, cooler heads prevailed, and the two were allowed to return to their courtside seats.

The incident was not the first time free expression has been threatened over the immigration debate. Five students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., were sent home for wearing American-flag T-shirts on May 5. School officials told the students that Cinco de Mayo was reserved as a day of pride for Mexican-Americans and wearing the Stars and Stripes was inappropriate. The episode is a sorry symbol of how freely the left tramples the nation's sacred contract.

The right of free speech is central to the Constitution. That's why our Founding Fathers enshrined it in the First Amendment. "After all, if freedom of speech means anything, it means a willingness to stand and let people say things with which we disagree, and which do weary us considerably," explained its leading proponent, Thomas Jefferson.

That clarity of thought on free expression stands in contrast to the muddled view of many liberals today. Elena Kagan, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, has written in favor of "redistribution of speech," as though opinion were a tangible commodity that can be measured and regulated. Central to this disposition, of course, is the dangerous notion that it is government that has the prerogative to decide what speech may be distributed, where and by whom.

Free speech isn't dead yet, and neither is this republic - Mr. Obama's best efforts notwithstanding. As long as the constitutional right of free expression endures, collective common sense will outscore political expediency every time in the court of public opinion. As Jefferson put it, "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."