Being held accountable for free speech

The big case that challenges the Calif. gay marriage ban begins on Monday in federal court in San Francisco. The challenge was filed soon after the Calif. Supremes decided last May the voters had approved a valid amendment, rather than an invalid revision, to the Calif. constitution.

There is some last-minute pre-trial wrangling because the pro-gay side wants to take advantage of new rules in federal courts that allow proceedings to be televised. The judge readily agreed. The anti-gay side is having conniptions, saying such exposure would have a chilling effect on its witnesses and subject their defense team to harassment by gays (oh, please!). The judge agreed to tape delay with segments released to YouTube hours later. The defendants say that isn't good enough and have asked Kennedy of the US Supremes to yank the plug on video. One wonders what they have to hide.

Here's a bit more detail about the Fundie conniptions. They claim that a televised trial (or one posted to YouTube) would intimidate witnesses or cause them to change their testimony. But aren't witnesses to tell the truth regardless of who is listening? Yeah, but saying something that will be buried in trial transcripts which nobody reads is different from saying something that will be watched worldwide for years to come. And that means they don't want to be held accountable for what they say -- they don't want video of their bigoted words to haunt them during the next "protect marriage" battle.

The idea of being held accountable has been way too real for one of the defendants of the ban. Hak-Shing William Tam saw the case being filed and asked to be included on the anti-gay side. Now he wants out. He is afraid of recognition and reprisals if there are cameras at the trial. He cites things that happened during the campaign: car tire punctured, someone tried to steal his yard sign, death threats (through YouTube, no less). No evidence that these incidents were perpetrated by gays, and they're mild compared to what many gays go through on a daily basis.

But leading up to the trial, those threats didn't stop him from giving interviews or participating in debates in favor of the ban. Or being added to the case last summer. So why is he terrified now?

He found out that by being part of the trial pro-gay lawyers have been sifting through everything he's written, some of it, of course, anti-gay. It's one thing to take part in a friendly debate, it’s quite another when your most virulent writing is unearthed. You want to shove your beliefs on us? We get to examine what those beliefs are. Free speech has consequences. There are people who will hold you accountable for what you say.

Margaret Talbot of the New Yorker has a lengthy article explaining all aspects of the trial. Some of the ideas that are new to me:

When the case was first filed many gay organizations said it was too soon. The makeup of the federal Supremes isn't in our favor yet and they don't like to get too far ahead of public opinion. The Loving v. Virginia of 40 years ago that overturned interracial marriage bans happened after more than three-quarters of the states already permitted such marriages. The feeling the case is too soon has intensified since the loss of gay marriage in Maine and the refusal of legislatures in New York and New Jersey to enact it.

But that's state law. Public opinion in favor of gay marriage (above 40% is much higher than the 20% in favor of interracial marriage 40 years ago).

This article contains an interesting discussion of choosing suitable people to be the plaintiffs in the case. It's not so simple. These are the people who will be the face of the case. They need to be able to speak well, be ordinary people (as in not activists), and have a secure relationship that will endure the scrutiny over the years the case will entail.

In the meantime various groups in Calif. are following the idea that voters are less likely to vote against gays if they know someone gay. Teams are spreading across the state, especially in conservative areas trying to engage people on their doorsteps in discussions about gays and gay marriage. Those canvassers have to be gutsy, considering how I tend to treat Fundies who come to my door.