As an increasing number of state and local governments pass laws that prohibit discrimination against gay and lesbian employees, individual citizens and groups opposed to such rights continue to fight against them. Although the First Amendment to the United State Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, a potential problem arises when the impartiality of a member of the judiciary is questioned based on free ‘‘hate speech’’ expressed as a private citizen. This paper explores the dilemma the courts face relative to the professional ethics of those who oversee the courts where gay and lesbian and other employees attempt to ensure their rights to fair treatment in the workplace.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Capitol Square Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 115 S. Ct. 2440, 132 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1995).
In re DeFoor, 494 So. 2d 1121 (Fla, 1986).
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Wilkerson, 876 So. 2d 1006 (Miss. 2004).
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 102 St. Ct. 3049, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1215 (2002).
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968).
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S. Ct. 1523, 71 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2002).
Scott v. Flowers, 910 F. 2d 201 (5th Cir. 1990).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mello, J.A. Balancing Hate Speech, Professional Ethics, and First Amendment Rights: A Case of and from the Judiciary. Employ Respons Rights J 18, 21–28 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-005-9002-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-005-9002-7