THE CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
Two millennia of Christian civilization have produced a society that conservatives know will not last forever on its own. It must be maintained, defended, and transmitted to the next generation. This inheritance includes individual freedom, a set of liberties with many enemies at home and abroad. It faces attack by everyone from Islamic fundamentalists to liberals who want to redefine "individual freedom" to mean its opposite.
The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) has its role in defending the individual freedom promoted by American values and the U.S. Constitution. Says CFIF’s mission statement, "The center seeks to focus public, legislative and judicial attention on the rule of law as embodied in the federal and state constitutions. Those fundamental documents both express and safeguard society’s commitment to individual freedom, not only through specific protections such as the Bill of Rights, but also through structural protections that constrain and disperse governmental authority."
CFIF handles litigation, files amicus curiae briefs, distributes information, and-as a 501(c)4 organization-lobbies on legislative issues. It is involved in cases ranging from the right to free commercial speech to zero tolerance policies in schools to campaign finance reform. "What we try to do is inject constitutional principles into these contemporary issues," said D. Eric Schippers, executive director of CFIF.
Schippers discussed a case that has received little public attention but has enormous implications for business in this country. Reversing two lower courts, the California Supreme Court ruled that a public relations campaign by Nike is "commercial speech." The U.S. Supreme Court, among other courts, has created a hierarchy of protection for different kinds of speech, and commercial speech is subject to all manner of regulation. But Nike’s PR campaign, defending its record in employing Third World laborers, was not commercial speech as traditionally understood, i.e., advertising and the like. The California court’s decision means that Nike, and other corporations or even small business owners, could be subject to the regulation of anything that it or he says.
"This means Nike can be sued for its PR campaign being ‘false and misleading,’ just like advertising can be," said Schippers. "Any company in America saying anything about anything, if that message is delivered in California, could be sued for being false and misleading." In California, not only the government but individual citizens can take companies to court for false and misleading advertising. Schippers hopes that the California decision, Kasky v. Nike, will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Others engaged in business have their own free speech problems. "America’s farmers and ranchers are being forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually to mandatory assessment programs, or check-offs, for so-called ‘generic’ advertising," says CFIF. "In fact, the 12 largest commodity promotion boards spend more than $700 million per year of hard-earned producer money."
"Organic producers, for example, don’t like the beef-‘It’s what’s for dinner’-campaign because it implies all beef is equal," said Schippers. "They would rather use their money to advertise on their own." Two cents of the cost of a gallon of milk, said Schippers, goes to the pro-milk-"Got milk?"-campaign.
CFIF is trying to help Teresa Ellenz, a 15-year-old Florida honor student who has gotten caught up in the zero-tolerance policy hysteria. The case is similar to that of a boy who got into trouble because of a kitchen knife found in a box in his car and that of a boy who was punished for drawing a picture of a soldier with a gun. Outside on school grounds, Teresa "picks up a bag of pills on the ground," said Schippers. "She can’t drop it because if someone sees her, she could be reported for having drugs. She can’t turn it in because she’s afraid that they may not believe that they are not hers. So she panics and puts them in her purse and tells another student about them."
Someone tells school officials, who suspend her for drug possession even though all of the pills are over-the-counter medicines except for one prescription muscle relaxant. "We’re trying to get this drug possession incident erased from her record," said Schippers.
Schippers also deplored the "ceremonial deism" that has been imposed on public events across the country due to the Supreme Court’s intolerant establishment clause opinions. He said that although the court has made some good decisions in recent years, it was hard to detect any trend. "Like Justice Scalia, we wish the court would establish some bright lines rather than leaving gray areas that only generate more litigation," he said.
CFIF may be reached at 901 N. Washington St., Suite 402, Alexandria, Va. 22314 (703-535-5836; fax: 703-535-5838; e-mail: [email protected]; website: www.cfif.org).
