I wrote a couple of days ago about an anti-bullying bill coming before the Massachusetts Senate that contained unrelated language adding “hate speech” about sexual orientation to the legal definition of libel. If passed, it could conceivably have opened up ordinary folks writing on web sites and in other places (people like me, in other words) to being used for holding Catholic views on homosexuality.

Fortunately, the offending language was removed just before the vote when the bill was re-written by the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The new bill, S2313, does not have any of the libel language in it.The bill, which passed unanimously, now goes back to the House for another vote.

Thanks to MassResistance for sounding the warning on this one.

Charlestown is a neighborhood of Boston, just north of the city across the Mystic River, which was once known as a tough place (whenever a bank robbery or armored car heist appeared in the news, it seemed inevitably to involve a “Townie”), but in recent years has been gentrifying, especially along the waterfront. Many of Boston’s wealthy professionals have purchased homes and condominiums in the area, joining one of the oldest residents already present there: The USS Constitution.

Of course, the Constitution—also known as Old Ironsides, an 18th-century ship of sail—is the oldest commissioned warship in the world and is on active duty in the US Navy. She is berthed in the Navy Yard in Charlestown and each day she follows Navy tradition by playing the National Anthem and firing a cannon in salute.

Last November some of the Constitution’s newer neighbors decided that the Old Lady was not being a good neighbor and asked that her ceremonies be altered or ceased. This week, the ship’s commanding officer refused their request. The neighbors had asked that the charges for the cannon be reduced and the volume on the anthem reduced and even eliminated completely on the weekends. They had complained—and I’m not exaggerating—that the noise disturbed houseguests’ sleep on the weekends and their ability to enjoy a glass wine on their balconies and patios in the evenings.

It’s not like the existence of the Constitution was a surprise to anyone moving into Charlestown, but like someone who moves near railroad tracks and is surprised at the blowing of whistles by passing trains in the night, all we can say is, that’s your own fault for failing to do due diligence. Caveat emptor!

The Constitution’s traditions are more than mere show for the tourists. They are an integral part of the ship’s mission, which is to serve as a reminder and a connection to our nation’s naval history in war and peace and to preserve our heritage and traditions, so we will never forget the sacrifice of blood, sweat, and tears of those who gave their all for freedom and liberty.

A few years ago, I was privileged to ride aboard the Constitution during his annual Fourth of July cruise in Boston Harbor, a day I won’t soon forget. While aboard I recorded the 21-gun salute to our nation from belowdecks.

Charlestown’s blue-state swells should remind themselves of Admiral Boom from “Mary Poppins”, the retired British man of the sea who fired off a cannon from his home on the square each day at noon. Although the blast nearly turned the neighbors’ home upside down each day, no one dreamed of asking the admiral to end a tradition that connected him to the sea and symbolized his long and distinguished service to King and Country.

Of course, I’m also reminded of another movie scene, one which expresses my attitude toward those who would cast aside our heritage and history so lightly. I’m thinking of Col. Jessup from “A Few Good Men”:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to.

Photo by Domenico Bettinelli. All Rights Reserved.

MassResistance brings to our attention today a new anti-bullying bill about to be voted on in the Massachusetts Senate on Thursday, March 11, the day after I post this, but perhaps already past by the time you read it. The legislation is a response to some widely reported instances of bullying in local schools, including one where a poor girl who recently immigrated from Ireland was hounded and ostracized to the point of suicide. The cases are universally awful and heart-wrenching, but cry out for local remedy. If parents and educators took responsibility for what’s going on in their own schools, such incidents could be reduced in number or eliminated all together. But, as usual, legislators of all political stripes must earn their paychecks, as it were, and propose new legislation every time something bad hits the news.

In this case, more than a dozen anti-bullying bills had been advanced in the House and Senate this session and they have all been whittled down to one bill being voted on by the Senate tomorrow: S.2283 (PDF).

But as is also very usual, such public and demagogued legislation often has unrelated bits and pieces—stuff that might be unpopular with a lot of people—tacked on so as to present a quandary to politicians. Do they vote against the bill because of these unrelated provisions to which they object and appear uncaring? (“Think of the children!”)

“Hate” speech code

MassResistance points out that S.2283 has one of these poison pills embedded within it, a provision that amends current libel law to expand the list of groups it’s unlawful to speak against. Chapter 272, Section 98C of the Mass. General Laws currently reads:

Whoever publishes any false written or printed material with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color or religion shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(Ironically, Chapter 272 is titled archaically, “Crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order”.)

The new version of this section proposed by S.2283 would say (emphasis added):

Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

So the question then becomes, “What does it mean to ‘maliciously promote hatred’ and what is the definition of ‘false’?” Note, as well, that in every other section, the bill addresses the bullying and abuse of students, this section casts a wide net and addresses and protects everyone who fits those categories.

Ladies and gents, is this a new speech code, like the ones we’ve been seeing pop up in Canada and Europe? But what about the First Amendment, you ask. Ah, but libel and slander are not constitutionally protected forms of speech. Will those of us who speak publicly about the immorality of homosexual acts and the whole homosexual subculture be labeled as “haters” subject to criminal prosecution? And while I can’t imagine the present US Supreme Court upholding this law if it’s challenged, I’m not so confident of future Courts, if the trend toward judicial activism continues.

I put the question to the lawyers out there: Is this something to worry about? In any case, it might be worthwhile, if there’s still time after you read this, to contact your Senator and express your distrust of this bill. Speech codes are never good for democracy.

Update: The Senate passed the bill unanimously yesterday.

Photo by Caveman (Kickin’ 66 with Pete Zarria) - http://flic.kr/p/5qoRbB

By state law in Massachusetts, employers must buy back some portion of employees’ unused vacation time when they leave their jobs, unless the employer stipulates a “use-it-or-los-it” policy up front. In my own job, I can bank up to 1.5 times my annual vacation time and carry it year-to-year and even sell it back when I leave my job. But that’s only at the end of employment and a very limited amount. And it doesn’t include sick time. That’s probably even more generous than most private-sector employers

Not so for employees of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. State employees can sell back up to 15 weeks of unused time and in some cases, such as Massport—which runs the seaports, airports, and some other transportation conduits— they can sell it back annually.

At the University of Massachusetts, they paid out $8.7 million in unused-time buybacks just last year. All told, the state paid $50 million last year, including $90,500 to departing employees of the Governor’s Office, which is notable because Patrick has been a critic of the practice.

Meanwhile, we have record unemployment and the state is crying poor-mouth as it cuts programs and aid to local cities and towns, while calling for increases in taxes and fees. Yet, a departing employee at Salem State College retired with a $151,000 buyback last year. The State Police force as a group paid $5.6 million in buybacks, while the Trial Courts paid $3.7 million.

I’ll believe their cries of empty pockets and threats to cut programs unless they raise taxes, when I see them start to cut these and other massive perks from the budget. They may claim that we’re in a Great Recession, but they certainly don’t act like it.

Photo by Kjetil Ree Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.