Word and deed

The space is small between violent words and violent deeds, but making a distinction between the two is crucial nonetheless to one of the founding principles of this nation. As legislators consider a bill that would punish what it calls “environmental terrorizing” they should take care that they are not endangering the First Amendment.

LD 1925 would make a person guilty of environmental terrorizing “if that person communicates to another person a threat to commit or cause to be committed a crime of violence dangerous to human life or destructive to property or business practices … .”

The activity in the second half of the statement — actually causing a crime of violence etc. — already is illegal, which is the way some environmentalists like it. It is no surprise that they choose their targets based on its illegality, because it draws attention to their cause. See under Tea Party, Boston. All lawmakers have to do with this part is refer it to the Criminal Advisory Commission to review whether current law in this area is sufficient.

The first half of the proposed law, however — the part making it illegal to “communicate to another person a threat” — should stop legislators cold. Proponents of this law insist that it is not about restricting speech. But punishing communication looks a lot like restricting speech. And the very vagueness of the language in this legislation (what exactly is a violent crime against a business practice, anyway?) should doom it.

One interpretation of LD 1925 might put in jail, for instance, a protestor who disrupts the normal course of a day at a paper-mill by shouting that its doors ought to be chained shut because it causes water pollution. Paper-mill workers might shout something back. As long as neither uses what the courts call fighting words, both sides should be free to exercise their beliefs and their lungs. Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine asked the Criminal Justice Committee in testimony this week whether the depressed sales of forest-harvesting equipment during the debate on the Forest Compact could be used under LD 1925 to treat anyone with a significant role in the debate — legislators, the governor? — as terrorists.

That may be a bit far-fetched, but it highlights the key constitutional problem with the bill, which seeks to punish people who express “a perspective on an environmental or natural resource issue.” The courts may proscribe the expression of ideas that have no or only slight redeeming social value, but opinions about the future of natural resources in Maine are unlikely to fall into one of these categories. Infringing on the right to offer opinions on important environmental issues violates First Amendment protections.

That this bill is an infringement on speech could be seen from supporting testimony that referred to a particularly silly piece of speech last year by Jonathan Carter of the Forest Ecology Network. Mr. Carter issued “a call for armed resistance” against paper companies, thereby arming his opponents with a killer soundbite. In his favor, Mr. Carter said at the time that, “a call to arms is not a call for violence,” but that is a detail lost to the larger theme of his speech. It was, however, only speech — no matter how misguided.

And misguided speech, like a misguided bill, should be merely rejected, not made the basis for a prison term.