Police Authority and Limitations on Free Speech
They can issue guns and badges. But they can’t grant the ability to make the right choices.
Fort Worth police provided Sarah Stogner with a gun and a badge. Nevertheless, it’s unclear if she possessed the essential judgment and understanding of constitutional law necessary to wield state power over citizens.
Thankfully, Sarah Stogner did not harm anyone. Still, this incident raises questions about the criteria for being deemed fit to exercise state authority.
There was controversy during the Trinity Pride celebration in Fort Worth on June 27, where a Christian street preacher was expressing his views outside the event. Stogner warned him that he could face consequences for “offensive” remarks. City officials later clarified that any citation would be based on noise ordinances rather than the content of his speech.
After the incident gained attention, the police department announced a plan for First Amendment retraining. However, this won’t erase the troubling image of officers confidently exercising powers not granted to them by the Constitution.
I believe retraining is needed, although it feels like adding insult to an already unsettling situation. What are they teaching in police academies today? This isn’t a complex matter of vague amendments or legal protections; it’s a straightforward issue of constitutional rights.
Americans shouldn’t lose their right to express themselves just because someone else, especially a police officer, finds it objectionable. Attacking someone verbally isn’t a crime; feelings of offense cannot justify suppression. The First Amendment applies, even at Pride festivals.
But it wasn’t just Stogner’s lack of understanding that caught my attention. It was her arrogance. She didn’t seem nervous or seek advice from her superiors. It was as if she believed wearing the badge provided all the answers.
That attitude exemplifies a deeper issue. Arrogant officers tend to assume rules and corrections apply to others, not to themselves. A badge should not be equated with moral correctness; rather, it denotes responsibility to uphold the law, which is significant authority.
For years, conservatives have defended law enforcement against movements to “defund the police,” acknowledging their role in maintaining order and protecting the public. Yet, this has morphed into a demand for allegiance, where loyalty to the badge is seen as a necessity. Conservatives often distrust many government entities but view local police as protectors of freedom—a potentially hazardous misconception.
Police aren’t a conservative movement; they are civil servants using delegated power. The slogan “Protect and serve” is more about branding than reality. Every bureaucratic entity, including police departments, develops its own interests and divides the world into “us” versus “them.”
This isn’t merely a matter of procedure; it’s about perception and interaction with the public. Differing opinions might feel like defiance, and questions can challenge authority. Police officers operate under the assumption that any deviation is a threat, and this can lead to problematic actions.
While police work necessitates a level of instinct for survival, this mindset can foster disconnection from community interactions. The public should not feel threatened for expressing dissent, and police cannot craft a veto over free speech simply because some find it offensive.
Enforce the noise laws, if appropriate. But there should be no room for creating excuses to silence protected expression. Good officers recognize this distinction, and effective departments ensure those values are upheld.
Hostility toward law enforcement isn’t the answer. We’ve witnessed the pitfalls of viewing all police as adversaries. Instead, we need an approach grounded in constitutional realism.
Support law enforcement when they adhere to the law, defend them against unfair criticisms, but hold them accountable for overstepping their boundaries. They are meant to uphold the law, not cater to any political agenda.
One should ponder whether someone unaware of the First Amendment’s significance should be entrusted with a badge and authority. While it’s fortunate that nobody was harmed this time, the standards for exercising state power should be much higher.
They can give out badges and guns, but they can’t bestow wisdom.
Even when arrogance is apparent, conservatives need to challenge it, not simply overlook it because of the uniform.
