[Andy Fox]

I didn’t want to use any of our Commission time to respond to Commissioner Rawls’ comments made during Public Forum, but I will voice my response here. I believe I am restating his sentiment accurately as the following:
“Look what you’ve done, you instigated this by putting your Presentation on the agenda.” The implication is that I should not pursue topics that some find controversial because they may elicit a strong reaction, presumably in the name of having a peaceful, uneventful commission meeting.
1) I am responding in the public square to what some Knox Countians already placed in the public square. As I stated on the record, to me the issue of illegal immigration is simple governance. There are federal laws on the issue, and Knox County should bring its policies in line with federal law. But some Knox Countians make a claim in response to Commissioner Lee’s or my initiatives that Christianity should be brought into the equation; that the federal laws are unjust under a Christian lens. I am going to respond to those erroneous claims; I’m not going to let them stand unchallenged in the public square.

2) Commissioner Rawls sentiment is a common one. It’s so common there is a name for it, “Heckler’s Veto.” Commentators do vary on whether the Heckler’s Veto is what the heckler himself does, in trying to shout down someone else’s attempt to speak in the public square, versus the government ‘s curtailing of speech due to a fear of disturbance in reaction to the speech. Either version of Heckler’s Veto is antithetical to the American tradition of a robust discussion in the public square and freedom to participate regardless of other’s disagreement. Disagreement must be voiced through public discourse, not for example by censoring speech, to be faithful to the American tradition of free speech. By blaming me for the disruption and lengthy meeting, Commissioner Rawls is promoting a passive form of Heckler’s Veto; a type of peer pressure to not engage in public discourse on topics that might elicit strong reaction.

3) I will absolutely not be intimidated from speaking due to opposition, nor will I be persuaded to not speak on issues that I believe need to be addressed. Actually the worst thing to do would be to stop speaking on topics that may elicit strong reaction, because these mobs need to be disabused of the idea that they can show up and make a disturbance that will lead to chilling effect on speech they don’t like. Furthermore, they will be conditioned to think they are the only ones who get to voice an opinion on topics that may be controversial. I will not allow that to happen. The people I represent get to have a voice as well. I will state again that I was elected as a Christian conservative. I did not hide who I was until elected. I am being faithful to the people who elected me when I profess my opinions.

[Shane Jackson]

Commissioner Fox,

I agree with you that we are both strong supporters of the First Amendment and the importance of free speech in the public square. Where I believe we differ is in how that principle applies within the context of deliberation among elected officials.

I think it is important to distinguish between government suppression of speech and political disagreement. When one commissioner questions the relevance of a topic or whether it falls within the proper jurisdiction of this body, is that repression by government—or is it simply part of legislative discourse? If disagreement among commissioners is treated as suppression, it becomes difficult to see how meaningful debate can occur at all.

I do not believe the concept of a “heckler’s veto” applies to discourse between elected officials. If the Chair were to prevent you from speaking due to anticipated audience reaction, that would clearly implicate First Amendment concerns. By contrast, disagreement or criticism from another commissioner does not approach a violation of free speech — even if raised voices occur. I also do not think it is fair to characterize Commissioner Rawls’ comments as heckling or jeering.

While I do not support any effort to censor you or prevent you from raising issues you care about, I do believe we have an obligation to distinguish between matters that Knox County can act upon and broader national debates that fall outside our authority. Participation in 287(g), for example, is under the purview of the Knox County Sheriff, not County Commission. Raising issues over which we lack control risks placing commissioners in the position of taking symbolic or partisan stances that do not lead to actionable outcomes or strengthen working relationships.

We have many substantive and productive debates on issues squarely within our responsibility—budget priorities, zoning decisions, and long-term county growth. Focusing our energy there is the best way to serve the people who elected us.

I look forward to your presentation(s) in February and to engaging through questions and discussion consistent with Commission rules and the principles of free speech we both value.

— Shane

[Author]

Posts