Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

In government in-boxes, all e-mail must be equal

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published July 27, 2006

In the fall, during the fight over religious holidays in the public school calendar, the Hillsborough County School Board temporarily blocked e-mails coming from the Florida Family Association.

The association and its leader, longtime decency crusader David Caton, had set up a Web site for users to e-mail the School Board in support of keeping religious holidays.

But when the e-mails started arriving, all from the same Internet address, the School Board set its computers to reject them. This block lasted from the close of business on Nov. 2 until sometime on the morning of Nov. 4.

The Florida Family Association and Caton filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tampa, alleging a violation of their rights under the First Amendment. The lawsuit is pending.

It is fair to say that the two sides see what happened through different lenses.

According to the School Board, once the e-mails started popping up at the rate of one every few seconds, it seemed like a possible automated e-mail "attack," so the board imposed the block as a precaution. The e-mails did not identify the Florida Family Association, but rather came from an intermediate Internet domain.

The next morning, after determining the e-mails were legitimate, the School Board says it ordered the block removed. Yet it took another day to get it done. The School Board says the extra delay was an innocent mistake.

Caton and the association are skeptical of this explanation. First of all, the e-mails weren't anonymous or unexplained - an e-mail from Caton himself, whose name is well known to the School Board, was in the first round.

Neither were just a few dozen incoming e-mails, out of the many thousands that arrive at school offices every day, enough to justify fear of a massive electronic attack.

Don Conwell, attorney for the association and Caton, alleges that the users of the Family Association's Web site were blocked "either on the basis of who they were, or the basis of their message."

Either would violate the First Amendment.

Remember, the amendment grants Americans five protections - freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress.

Blocking communication from one particular group of citizens, it seems to me, violates both the rights of assembly and petition.

It's true, as the School Board argues, that no one has the right to e-mail the government.

But once the government accepts e-mail from some citizens, then it cannot pick and choose. It certainly is not allowed to say, "You can e-mail us only if you don't belong to Group X."

That is exactly the case here. In fact, the School Board continued to accept e-mail on the religious holiday issue from all other citizens, on all sides of the debate - as long as it didn't come from the Family Association's Web site.

For the duration of the block, the "assembly" of citizens who wanted to petition the government using the Family Association's Web site couldn't do it. Whether the School Board cites fear of an e-mail attack or technical delays as its defense does not change that impact.

I am aware of the irony of supporting the Florida Family Association, which in every other context wants to deny me the freedom to read, watch or behave as I choose, seeking to ban anything it considers "indecent."

As for the original calendar issue, my opinion hasn't changed - I disagree with the association. A secular school system, which is supported by mandatory taxes taken from all citizens, ought to be neutral with respect to religion.

But the freedom to speak, to assemble and to petition are core First Amendment rights, and they are every bit as important as the others. They are a package deal; they cannot be unraveled; neither can they be suspended or overruled by the information technology department.

Why does this still matter, if the problem from November was fixed? Because of the prospect it could happen again, or that the government might become even bolder in its use of such claims.

The Family Association wants, either by the federal judge's order or by a change in the School Board's policy, a guarantee this won't happen again. If I were on the School Board, I would give it eagerly; if I were the federal judge, I would order it sternly.

[Last modified July 27, 2006, 01:08:37]