A Pennsylvania town’s resolution prohibiting the display of the “Thin Blue Line” flag supporting law enforcement was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.
According to several reports, U.S. District Judge Karen Marston ruled that the town’s ban on the flag restricts free speech of public employees under the First Amendment.
“The Township repeatedly suggests that the Thin Blue Line American Flag is of limited, if any, public value or concern because it is ‘offensive’ and ‘racist,’” Marston reportedly wrote in the court opinion. “But as this Court previously told the Township, ‘the First Amendment protects speech even when it is considered “offensive.”’"
The township argued that the flag was creating “discontent and distrust” in the community against the police. The dispute initially began in 2021, around the time of the Black Lives Matter riots in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death (via AP):
Tensions began when the township police department’s union voted to incorporate the flag into its logo in 2021. Several of the township’s commissioners opposed the decision, due to the fact the symbol has become associated with Blue Lives Matter, a term which has been used by some police supporters in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.
[...]
In October 2022, the matter escalated when the township’s lawyer and manager sent a cease-and-desist letter to the union, saying that the use of the flag in the union’s logo “unnecessarily exacerbates the ongoing conflict between police officers and the communities they serve,” directing the union to stop using the flag or remove Springfield Township from its name.
After the union refused to drop the flag or change its name, the commissioners adopted a policy that barred township employees, agents or consultants from displaying the flag while on duty or representing the township. It prohibited the display of the flag on personal property brought into a township building or from being displayed on township-owned property, including vehicles.
Recommended
Wally Zimolong, an attorney representing the police officers, said that the court’s ruling was a victory for free speech.
"It was a resounding win for the First Amendment and free speech," he said. "It showed once again that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination based upon a message it disagrees with or finds offensive."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member