5/24/10
For the last week or so, we in the Chicagoland area, and perhaps many outside this area, have been “treated” to the heart rending tale of Jennifer LaPenta, a 19 year old woman from Round Lake who was held in contempt of court, and spent a night in jail, for coming to a friend’s court hearing wearing a t-shirt that said “I have the (slang word for a woman’s genitalia or an adjective sometimes used with “cat”) so I make the rules.”
Perhaps the punishment was too severe, especially if Ms. LaPenta is telling the truth when she said she offered to remove the shirt (which, come to think of it, may have led to more than a contempt citation) and leave the courtroom but, in spite of the offer, was immediately taken into custody. Regardless of one’s opinion of the severity of the sentence, one cannot help but cheer Judge Helen Rozenberg for having the (slang term for certain components of a man’s genitalia) to try to restore a modicum of decorum in her courtroom and, in a larger sense, to our society. Ms. LaPenta apparently doesn’t see it that way and has filed suit seeking to have her record expunged of this contempt citation.
The point of this post is not to comment on the severity of Ms. LaPenta’s sentence or on the merits of her suit. The point is to ridicule one of her attorney’s silly arguments and wholeheartedly agree with one of his (perhaps) well reasoned arguments.
Ms. LaPenta’s attorney, Peter Kalagis, argued, in filing Ms. LaPenta’s suit
“We as a people are free to express ourselves in words and writing as long as it doesn’t cause harm.”
Really? When the framers of the Constitution appended the First Amendment to our foundational document, the type of speech and expression they so earnestly tried to protect was “I have the (slang word for a woman’s genitalia or an adjective sometimes used with “cat”) so I make the rules”? And people died or otherwise put up with all sorts of deprivations and hardships so some air-headed kid could enter a courtroom with “I have the (slang word for a woman’s genitalia or an adjective sometimes used with “cat”) so I make the rules” emblazoned across her chest? Ms. LaPenta, with the depth of constitutional appreciation and understanding of the typical 19 (or, sadly, 49) year old, may believe that, but are we supposed to believe that? Does Mr. Kalagis believe that? C’mon!
But Mr. Kalagis not only was able to keep a straight face, and a degree of shame, when making the above argument. He also made, albeit probably unwittingly, a very cogent argument when he further stated that most people in the ‘20s, ‘30s, and ‘40s would not find the T-shirt Ms. LaPenta wore offensive. Doubtless this is true. From what I am seeing of late, I would not be surprised to see apparel featuring such deep thought and, of course, hilarious, thigh-slapping humor, worn not only in court, but at weddings, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, Easter services, presidential inaugurations, and funerals.
In our new and improved America, populated by fans of the likes of Lady Gaga and Lindsey Lohan and in which only an America hating Communist would not believe that our best days are ahead of us, how can anyone possibly be offended by, or fail to see the incisive wit and boundless hilarity of a T-shirt that says “I have the (slang word for a woman’s genitalia or an adjective sometimes used with “cat”) so I make the rules”? Such a person would have to be (Horrors!) hopelessly unhip, old-fashioned, and out of touch with popular culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You are wrong Mark; and I will tell you why. In many societies, and for far too long in this country, women were treated as second class citizens - or non citizens when they could not even vote. Even now, the so-called wage gap (the difference between what a man is paid and a woman, for the same work) is not ZERO.
LaPenta's speech was political and entitled to First Amendment protection. That her speech was in a court room only slightly changes the analysis. Was it disruptive? No. Did she impede the administration of Justice? No. Assuming the Judge found it offensive (as she apparently did), the Judge had the option of ordering her to leave her court room since, as noted, her only purpose in being there was to transport a friend. Thus, she had no business before the Court that required her presence.
One can travel down a slippery slope when one tries to impose his or her own "standards" on others who are legitimately advocating their political view.
As to my view of the Judge's action, she was wrong and here is why: a court is obliged to use the least possible power to serve its purposes. That is black letter law in Illinois, and the Judge failed to use the least possible power. The Judge should be rebuked for misusing (and certainly misunderstanding) the power of criminal contempt.
Rob
5/24/10
Thanks for reading and commenting Rob, but it’s really a stretch to say that “I have the (slang word for a woman’s genitalia or an adjective sometimes used with “cat”) so I make the rules” is a form of protest against the wage gap. In fact, if this young woman really believed what she had emblazoned across her t-shirt, she was proclaiming exactly the opposite—that women have the upper hand in our society. More likely, though, she just somehow thought this offensive, scatological display was somehow funny or clever, telling us more about her judgment and character than anything else. Notice that she did not defend her action by saying that she was making some sort of political statement; instead, she said she was at the gym, wearing this shirt, when her friend called and asked for a ride to court.
Further, if political discourse in this country has descended to this level, such degeneration only adds still more evidence to one of my overriding theses; i.e., our society is going down the drain. Can you imagine Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, Alice Paul, or Victoria Woodhull (or even Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton) wearing such a shirt? People used to think; now they just react and emote.
As far as the judge’s misapplying her power, that is another issue, one that the courts apparently will decide.
Again, Rob, thanks for reading and commenting.
I am unable to respond because, by your standards, any word you find offensive may say more about my "judgment" and "character" than anything else. (Otherwise, I would be pointing out the "offensive" language that has changed our culture, and history too.)
I think, as a starting point, we need to have a similar knowledge of history. Without that, our discussion is like two ships in the night.
If you can, please identify a political, social or religious message that resonated (and changed the landscape), albeit with highly (at the time, or now) offensive language. Might I suggest you start with the 1960s counter-culture movement? Or, if you prefer, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971.
I respect you Mark. But I find your sanctimonious comments not just offensive to those that view the Constitution differently than you do, but dangerous.
The difference between you and I - if you don't mind this very pointed comment so we can cut to the chase - is that I would protect your right to speak, no matter how offensive I find your remarks.
Rob
5/25/10
Free speech has few more ardent champions than I; anyone who knows me or who has read the Pontificator, or any of my other writings, to any extent knows that.
Yes, there is plenty of speech that I don’t like: profanity (though I use quite a bit myself; I just try to keep it as private as possible), silliness, prime time television, insufficiently well considered popping off, tired old words like “actually,” “awesome,” and “literally,” flag burning, asinine rhymes (e.g., “Heigh ho, hee ho, (Insert some name here) has to go”), etc. I find most of it not only offensive, but silly and reflective of the deterioration of the American mind. But do I support banning it? Of course not. People are entitled to their silliness and their crassness. But are there some fora in which a modicum of respect and decorum should be maintained? Certainly. The courtroom, the church, the synagogue, and the halls of Congress (just barely) are such places.
American society is going down the drain and is doing so at a rapid clip. The ‘60s counter-culture movement, though it certainly did have some salubrious side effects (e.g., societal acceptance of civil rights for minorities and women, getting us out of the odious Vietnam War) helped plant the seeds of that societal deterioration by breaking down long held norms concerning drugs, family life, sexual freedom (with attendant consequences for the kids that were often treated as an unfortunate by-product thereof), educational standards (i.e., the search for “relevance” that caused us to forget the lessons of our ancestors), etc. Would I favor anything on the legal front to halt this deterioration, this race to destruction? No. People have the right to make bad choices and they have the right to destroy themselves. They shouldn’t have the right to have “society” bail them out of their bad choices, but, unfortunately they do in a society that can’t seem to make the distinction between right and wrong for fear of being considered (Horrors!) judgmental. They also shouldn’t have the right to bring the whole society down with them, but, unfortunately, they do and appear to be exercising that right. A society based on freedom has to live with the consequences, which is why a free society is so dependent, unlike totalitarian societies, on sound moral and spiritual underpinnings. Freedom without restraint and self-control is license, and, at its boundaries, a prescription for chaos.
So while I might not like a lot of speech and behavior that is embraced in some quarters as a manifestation or avatar of freedom, I respect that freedom enough to allow people to speak and behave as they choose. But I insist on maintaining that right for myself as well. People have the right to act like idiotic boors, and I have the right to declare that they are, indeed, acting like idiotic boors. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it, even if it seems hopelessly out of touch, or even dangerous, to some. People have the right to behave as they please, I have the right to judge that behavior for what I think it is, to call it out, and, hopefully, bring along enough people so that we, as a society, and NOT as a government, can move to a point at which we can censure such behavior as beyond the pale, a concept that seems archaic in our “Do whatever the hell you want and let others suffer the consequences and everyone else pick up the tab” society. You have a similar right to call out my behavior or speech.
Thanks, Rob, for reading and commenting. I do respect your opinions and appreciate your participation. And, contrary to what you stated in your last paragraph, I, too, would defend your right to say what you will. Some of it I don’t like, as you don’t like much of what I say, but I insist that we both have the right to criticize each other’s viewpoints. But criticizing one’s behavior or speech is not tantamount to seeking to outlaw or ban such speech or behavior. No one has the right to be free from criticism.
5/25/10
One more thing, Rob, in keeping with the rights I insist on for myself, and for everyone else, as expressed in my last comment:
People of character and judgment do not wear t-shirts that say “I have the (slang word for a woman’s genitalia or an adjective sometimes used with “cat”) so I make the rules” in a courtroom, or anywhere else, for that matter. People of character and judgment advance their arguments and causes in intelligent, rational fora such as The Insightful Pontificator, as you are doing.
Thanks again, Rob.
I have spent many hours in courtrooms (though not so much recently), and one learns pretty quickly that a judge is the supreme authority in his or her courtroom. Freedom of Speech exists only to the extent that a judge allows it. I have observed judges ordering people (lawyers, not just defendants) to tuck their shirts in, straighten their ties, turn off their pagers (remember those?), and put their jackets on, not to mention sending people to prison.
On the other hand, a 19-year-old may not have much experience interacting with judges, and may not have been clued into the haughtiness of some who have ascended to the bench. So, although the 19-year-old showed poor judgment in leaving the house with that shirt on, let alone stepping into a courtroom with it on, poor judgment from a 19-year-old is not unexpected. I would expected more judicious actions from a judge--contempt citations should be used sparingly unless you want to be thought of a Julius Hoffman Jr. And judges more than anyone should be wary of adding unnecessary cases to the docket. Kick the woman out of your courtroom and get on with your business.
5/25/10
Anonymous,
That’s probably the conclusion I would come to: Throw her out of the courtroom with a stern warning. But that, at this point, is for the courts to decide as Ms. LaPenta’s suit works its way through the system. I was glad to see that the judge did something, even if too much, to enforce decorum in the courtroom. As I said:
“Perhaps the punishment was too severe, especially if Ms. LaPenta is telling the truth when she said she offered to remove the shirt (which, come to think of it, may have led to more than a contempt citation) and leave the courtroom but, in spite of the offer, was immediately taken into custody. Regardless of one’s opinion of the severity of the sentence, one cannot help but cheer Judge Helen Rozenberg for having the (slang term for certain components of a man’s genitalia) to try to restore a modicum of decorum in her courtroom and, in a larger sense, to our society. Ms. LaPenta apparently doesn’t see it that way and has filed suit seeking to have her record expunged of this contempt citation.”
The larger point I was making had to do with the stretching of the boundaries of “political” speech and the general deterioration of our society into silliness, gormlessness, and crassness.
Thanks for reading and commenting, as always.
Mark, you did not respond to my earlier points. You simply repeated your prior points as if repetition bolsters your argument. Two ships in the night. Whether our society is "going down the drain" has zero to do with the exercise of a First Amendment right.
As I said, your views are scary to me, and dangerous to our country. You self-righteously believe that the grittiness of political speech impacts on whether it should be permitted under our Constitution. If someone wants their speech to resonate, they make the choice of words, tone, format, etc. Mark doesn't get to impose his view. (The Judge is required to use the least possible power.)
Also, your compliments to me about the manner (and my lack of scatological comments) are offensive to me. Our arguments are not on the same level and your effort to equate your holier than thou tone with my fundamental argument about the contour of the First Amendment is offensive and not relevant.
Rob
Calm down, Rob.
Post a Comment