Petrelis Files

Free speech, one of the most pesky parts of American law and culture, was dealt a death blow by the Board of Supervisors in the People's Republic of San Francisco on May 10.

In a unanimous vote, the eleven Supes voted to prohibit what they deem to be "discriminatory" statements by any citizen during public comment at the full Board's meetings and all meetings held by city commissions.

This has come about because of outrageous sexist, anti-gay and comments made recently by residential housing developer Joe O'Donoghue, who also questioned whether a pregnant woman was an appropriate pick for a commission.

O'Donoghue, originally from Ireland, seem to really get in hot water when he questioned Mayor Gavin Newsom's sexual orientation. He's been a thorn in the side of many politicians at City Hall as he's carried out his building and contracting business agendas, and he's not well-liked in many circles.

I mention O'Donoghue's place of origin and ancestry, which is why he's got a thick brogue, because when he speaks at meetings carried on the city's government access channel, I wish for subtitles. I can't understand more than half of what he says, but under the new rules, I would be barred from saying anything about his way of speaking.

But his poem about Newsom's sexuality, offensive remarks about he suitability of a pregnant commissioner to decide important housing issues for the city and calling Board president Aaron Peskin "an angry dwarf," are protected under the First Amendment, and it's disturbing that this city, of all US cities, now bars speech that the Supes don't approve of.

According to the Chronicle, quoting Peskin, they passed a resolution about derogatory speech to "make a clear statement that discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, weight, height or place of birth will not be tolerated in San Francisco city government." (Source: SF Chron )

So how will the Supes and assorted city commissioners know what constitutes offensive speech? The Chronicle says one of the Supes wants the Board to "follow up the resolution with some kind of training for city commissioners so that they can identify inappropriate public testimony and put a stop to it."

As we watch the Supes grapple with figuring out how to restrict speech they don't like, and actually believe it has nothing to do with free speech, let's hope civil libertarians get off their asses and put a stop to this incredibly dangerous effort in San Francisco to hinder offensive remarks during public comment at City Hall meetings.

The Examiner reports today that "Supervisor Tom Ammiano said this week he was relieved that the board had come together to send a message that attacks on one's political positions are acceptable even if they're uncomfortable, but attacks on one's humanity are not." (Source: SF Ex )

All of a sudden Ammiano is worried about attacks on Dubya's humanity, which have livened up many a boring meeting?

One last point. I fear Republicans will use the anti-free speech resolution to put a stop to the Supes making derogatory comments and jokes about President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. My favorite part of Supes' meetings is when they're trashing our leaders in Washington and that could come to an end, if the rules of the resolution are evenly enforced, and who really wants that?