Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance discusses the application of the First Amendment in our country

Ken Vance, editor|
Clark County Today

Last week, Clark County Today reported on the social media activity of a Clark County employee that many find offensive and inappropriate. Renee Alsept has been a public defender in Clark County’s Public Defense Department since Nov. 1, 2024. During that time and before, she has routinely made profane social media posts about her hatred for President Trump and Trump supporters. In one post, she even referred to law enforcement as “pigs’’ and used the derogatory term of “Vantucky’’ to mock Vancouver residents.

The report received an abundance of feedback from readers. Many expressed their shock and disgust with Alsept’s behavior, citing the fact that her salary is paid by taxpayer dollars. However, many of those who responded did so in defense of Alsept and her right to express her opinions and beliefs on her own social media account. The majority of those who spoke in defense of Alsept, did so using the premise of freedom of speech.

The point I believe those commenters were missing is that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences from that speech.

The First Amendment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’’ – The First Amendment

Wikipedia states, “Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors, there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities. Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that protection of speech is not absolute.’’

I’m far from a Constitutional scholar, but that appears to be Alsept’s saving grace in this situation. Even though it disgusts many of us that she will continue to receive a salary supported by our tax dollars, the county is likely forbidden to take state action in response to her behavior. I’m not suggesting county staff have the desire to take action, many of them likely agree with Alsept’s speech, which has apparently gone silent in the past week since her behavior was brought to the attention of her superiors. I would argue that freedom of speech should be more restricted by a government employee than a person in the private sector.

Let’s presume for the time being that Alsept’s speech is protected and the county has no ability to discipline her or terminate her employment. Is protecting that type of speech the true intent of the First Amendment? I don’t think it is. Remember, our Constitution was written by our founders who were fleeing persecution for their beliefs. Even if it is the intent of our founders, I don’t think that is what’s best for our society and our community.

Robert Charles Post made the following observation in The MIT Press Reader.

“Whatever freedom of speech might signify, it does not mean that unrestrained expression is inherently desirable,’’ Post wrote. “It does not mean that more speech is always better. One can see this clearly if one imagines the limit case. Those who cannot stop talking, who cannot exercise self-control, do not exemplify the value of free speech. They instead suffer from narcissism. Unrestrained expression may be appropriate for patients in primal scream therapy, but scarcely anywhere else.’’

I couldn’t agree more. I’m certainly guilty of expressing my frustration with the radicals on the other side of the ideological spectrum – mostly I find it entertaining to poke fun at them and antagonize them. I know, it’s low-hanging fruit. However, I don’t have any examples of speech similar to Alsept’s that has ever changed anyone’s mind, or improved our society in the very least. It serves no fundamental purpose other than as a venting exercise for the one spewing venom and hate.

I think if we were all honest with ourselves, we would admit that we believe it’s those who disagree with us who are the greatest abusers of the First Amendment. We each want our own speech to be protected, but we are far less interested in speech we disagree with being protected. So, it comes down to who among us can exercise the most self control. I will argue Alsept needs to practice more self control and maybe someone has already convinced her to do just that.

The winds they are a changing

I spent much of my career as a journalist covering sports, specifically the Portland Trail Blazers and the National Basketball Association. In 2020, former Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear had his career ended over something he said. Former Sacramento player DeMarcus Cousins asked Napear (on social media) his thoughts on the Black Lives Matter movement. Napear responded, “Hey!!! How are you? Thought you forgot about me. Haven’t heard from you in years. ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE.” The exchange happened a week after the killing of George Floyd, as protests were happening around the country.

After his termination, Napear sued his employer for wrongful termination. The company said its decision was justified, saying the decision to “not cast [plaintiff] following his divisive comment was itself an expression about the tone, style, and, indeed, the voice of commentary the station would deliver.” A federal judge ruled against Napear in his wrongful termination suit.

I met Napear on several occasions. I didn’t know him well enough to know what was in his heart when he said “all lives matter.’’ It certainly doesn’t seem to me like speech that would lead to the termination of employment, or stand up to a wrongful termination lawsuit. I know others have pre-determined that those three words are code for racism. Maybe I’m being naive, but I don’t believe they are.

It seems to me that “freedom of speech’’ in our country, and the interpretation of the First Amendment, are situational. And, that interpretation can be dependent on which way the political winds are blowing at the time in our country.

Right now, folks with my opinions and beliefs can rest comfortably at night. We have a president, Supreme Court and even a slim majority in Congress that protects our freedom of speech. During the previous administration, I felt like it was a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah and the free speech rights of folks like me were under attack. I could pen a number of columns with anecdotes about the attempts of others in recent years to censor both myself and Clark County Today. Thankfully, those attempts have been unsuccessful.

So, if Alsept and her defenders feel like they are now under attack, welcome to the modern times in the United States of America.

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: More taxes sadly the Washington way
  Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington lawmakers continue to turn to new taxes instead of addressing state spending priorities, particularly in health care policy.
• 
  Opinion: IBR administrator receives generous Christmas gift on his way out the door
  Ken Vance argues that IBR leadership avoided accountability on rising project costs as Administrator Greg Johnson announced his departure without providing updated estimates.
• 
  Opinion: ‘If you tolerate lies and dishonesty from the government, you’re guaranteed more’
  Lars Larson criticizes state officials for refusing to disclose updated cost estimates for the Interstate Bridge Replacement project, arguing that a lack of transparency guarantees further government dishonesty.
• 
  Letter: ‘President Trump has stopped the flooding’
  Camas resident Anna Miller argues that the immigration system’s due process framework has failed under volume and backlog, and credits President Donald Trump with prioritizing enforcement to stop illegal border crossings.
• 
  Letter: ‘If we want workable immigration reform, we must first restore basic human dignity to the debate’
  Vancouver resident John Ford argues that restoring human dignity to public discourse is essential before meaningful immigration reform can occur.