Opinion |

The social contract we all should sign

A few weeks ago, I admitted in this column to being on my last nerve when it comes to the anti-(COVID) vaccination crowd. I described their disregard for the rest of us as inconsiderate and irresponsible in a time of a public health crisis. And I couldn’t see any way to find common ground.

It wasn’t my most beloved column. Some readers were looking for ideas to bridge the vaccination divide — especially with friends and family members in both camps and the holidays around the corner. Their reaction made me think that I may have lost some perspective. And it reminded me that I don’t own the only truth.

That said, my perspective is perfectly clear on the matter of free speech. It has its limits. We shouldn’t tolerate hateful rhetoric in public forums.

In case you missed it, a verbal melee broke out at the Nov. 2 San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting. Nearly 70 people attended the meeting to speak out against vaccine mandates. One of the speakers spewed insults and threats at Supervisors Nathan Fletcher, Terra Lawson-Remer and Nora Vargas; he also leveled a racist remark at San Diego County Chief Medical Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten, who is Black.

His vile remarks were cheered by others in the group.

While incivility has been on full display at recent Board of Supervisors meetings, the recent meeting hit a new low. Still, Fletcher (the board chairman) carefully showed deference to the principles of free speech when he spoke to participants, noting that disagreement has always been welcome. Fletcher said, “We sit here and we listen, (because) the First Amendment affords people the right to come down and say anything that they want to say. Even if it’s untrue, even if it’s vulgar, even if it’s profane.”

But Fletcher also objected to the way in which the meetings have devolved, saying it’s become “sport or game” for some people to see how outrageous or offensive they can be. Amid the chorus of insults and threats, important points get lost. And public participation is chilled, due to fears of harassment or intimidation. It’s difficult to conduct county business.

The board’s “Rules of Procedure,” which define meeting protocol and participation, were first adopted in 1970. The rules permit speakers to say whatever they want in their allotted time. Fletcher suggested that changes would be coming. “We are going to always comply with all applicable laws,” he stated, adding, “This isn’t about free speech or disagreement, this is about decency.”

Fletcher wasn’t kidding — the changes came quickly. On Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors met to consider new rules that would discourage “hate speech and racism” during their public meetings. The rules call for adoption of the National Conflict Resolution Center’s “Code of Civil Discourse” as an aspirational goal. The code sets out guidelines for communication by and between elected officials and community members. It envisions talk that is inclusive, respectful and free from personal attacks.

To some, the new public-speaking protocols may sound like a slippery slope. After all, the First Amendment is sacrosanct. It connects us as Americans, equally protecting our right to self-expression and the rights of others with whom we disagree. When we exercise our First Amendment freedoms, we demonstrate democracy at its best.

That very concern was expressed by a number of people who called into the meeting to oppose the policy changes. Their belief was that the actions of one speaker — who they uniformly agreed was out of line — would result in a loss of their free-speech privileges.

Still, the new rules were approved. Fletcher, Lawson-Remer and Vargas voted in favor of their adoption, while Supervisor Joel Anderson voted no. Supervisor Jim Desmond was on a pre-planned trip and absent from the meeting. The changes will go into effect immediately.

But here’s the reality: What occurred on Nov. 2 (and is occurring in public forums around the country, mostly in response to vaccine mandates) is about more than acknowledging and protecting our First Amendment rights. It goes beyond the fine line between free speech and hate speech. It’s about our responsibilities as citizens.

In order for a democracy to function, we must adhere to a social contract. That means complying with social norms, principles and laws to ensure the protection of all. The contract applies uniformly — whether we’re talking about national matters or local concerns, as discussed at a Board of Supervisors meeting.

Let’s adhere to the social contract and join together, as citizens, to sign on the dotted line.

Dinkin is president of the National Conflict Resolution Center, a San Diego-based group working to create solutions to challenging issues, including intolerance and incivility. To learn about NCRC’s programming, visit ncrconline.com.