Free Speech For Some, But Not For All

The Reviled Matt Hale

By Elizabeth Wright

[Reprinted from Issues & Views November 2000]

Is freedom of speech a moot issue at this point in American history? Are those who persist in fighting to uphold the principles of the First Amendment fighting an already lost battle? From several recent polls of American citizens, it would seem that most people are more concerned about avoiding social discord than with preserving individual rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

It appears that the average American accepts the notion that if John's resolute opinions make his neighbor George unhappy--or, in today's politically correct jargon, "uncomfortable"--then John should be restrained from expressing those opinions. The once sacred adage that went something like, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," today is virtually unknown, and has given way to "Don't make waves."

The unquestioned right to disagree with majority opinion is no longer respected or considered an essential feature of the American social contract. Instead, there is a growing acceptance of or indifference to the use of smear tactics against citizens, whose expressed views deviate from the popular norm. Hurling the epithet "hater," with the intent to destroy the targeted person's reputation, has become common practice.

Note the example of Matt Hale, a most unpopular figure. In 1998, he graduated from the law school of Southern Illinois University, and went on to pass the bar exam. Because what was considered Hale's notorious reputation preceded him, the Illinois State Bar denied him a license, a decision that two Hearing Panels upheld, thus preventing him from practicing law.

Matt Hale is head of the World Church of the Creator, an organization whose religious tenets include teaching whites to regard their own race above others. Creator members believe that the colored races are inferior and should be shunned by whites. (Not exactly acceptable creeds in multicultural, integrationist Western society.)

After being declared "unfit" to practice law by the State Bar, Hale petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to review his case. As might be expected in today's social climate, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to review his case. However, one dissenting Judge, James Heiple, questioned the wisdom of rejecting such a case. He wrote, "The crux of the Committee's decision to deny petitioner's application to practice law is petitioner's open advocacy of racially obnoxious beliefs. . . . The Committee seems to hold that they may deny petitioner's application for admission to the Bar without finding if petitioner has engaged in any specific conduct that would have violated the disciplinary rules if petitioner were already a lawyer. . . . Is there one standard for admission to practice and a different standard for continuing to practice? And if the standard is the same, can already licensed lawyers be disbarred for obnoxious speech?"

No print journalists or commentators in the mainstream media spoke up for Matt Hale's free speech rights. One of the few voices of support came from a University of Nebraska student journalist, Jeremy Patrick, who, in his article, "Bar Association Oversteps First Amendment Rights," wrote:

Consider the case of Matthew Hale, an avowed racist who took the Illinois Bar Exam. Hale passed the exam, including the portion on ethics, but was refused a law license because of his political and religious views. The Bar is afraid Hale won't be able to treat black clients fairly. If, as the U.S. Supreme Court asserts, freedom of expression is the "fixed star" of the constitutional "constellation," then the law should only prohibit actions and not words.

There is no evidence that Hale has ever acted in a discriminatory manner toward blacks, nor has he ever threatened to treat black clients unfairly. This failure to separate mere words from actions creates a dangerous precedent. If a Southern Baptist applies for a law license, should he be denied because he might not treat women or gays fairly?

I've probably said all kinds of things about Christians. Should I be denied because I might not treat them fairly? Simply put, lawyers don't need to like their clients to do a good job. When lawyers defend rapists, embezzlers and murderers, do you think they like their clients? Probably not, but they're still ethically bound to do their best.

Hale's views are despicable and wrong. But the point is that no one, not even Bar Associations in all of their monopolistic splendor, should have the power to decide what kind of speech is allowable. Does your copy of the Constitution say that there shall be no law abridging freedom of speech "unless the speech is insensitive?" Mine doesn't.

Daunted but not yet undone by the cards stacked against him, Matt Hale next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of his case.

In the interim between the State Bar's rejection of his license and the denial of his petition by the Illinois Supreme Court, a tragic incident took place. A deranged member of the Church of the Creator--apparently angered over the court's treatment of Hale's case and embittered over his own arrest for distributing the Church's white nationalist literature--went on a shooting spree, killing two men and injuring others.

Months later, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, refused to review Hale's case. This effectively put an end to any future possibility of him ever attaining a law license in the state of Illinois. The media outlets that bothered to cover this case at all took the expected editorial positions against Hale, celebrating the fact that a "racist" had been thwarted in his attempts to become a legal voice and defender for a despised white minority.

One of the few supporters of Hale's right to adhere to his views on race and practice law was talk show host Michael Medved, who interviewed Hale on his WKVI-AM program in Seattle. Here is some of what Medved had to say after learning of the Supreme Court's decision not to review Hale's case:

This is another day in the greatest nation on God's green earth, where the Supreme Court of the United States has been making news all day today and yesterday as well. Part of what the Supreme Court has decided in crucial cases involving abortion, the Boy Scouts and the right of the Scouts to determine who will and will not be a Scoutmaster--these are decisions that are going to impact everybody in the country.

But the Supreme Court also made a decision yesterday that will impact many of us ultimately, even though it's gotten almost no attention. To a lot of people the decision just seems reasonable. It basically was a decision not to decide. The story involved Matthew Hale. He is the leader of the World Church of the Creator. It is a racist group, proudly racist group. It is a group that is a white supremacist group. It is, as you might imagine, highly controversial.

Mr. Hale went to law school, he passed the Bar exam, and then the State Bar in Illinois where he lives said, No, you're a racist, you're not allowed to be a lawyer. He sued, the case went up to the Supreme Court, and the Court declined to hear his case.

Despite the fact that Mr. Hale and I probably have very little in common and he might view me as a natural enemy, I happen to believe that he's right on this case, that it's shameful to deny somebody the right to practice law based on his political ideas, no matter how hateful you may think they are.

State Bar officials officially noted that Matthew Hale from East Peoria, Illinois, "has dedicated his life to hatred," and said he cannot do this as an officer of the court. Given the record of an awful lot of attorneys, it seems to me that the idea that someone cannot be a lawyer, and that we are now going to create a standard where the only crime for which you are going to be prevented from practicing law is for advocating racial ideas that are unacceptable seems bizarre.

If we accept the principle that somebody, because he's a racist, an extremist, a hater, and a Hitlerian and a Nazi, and all those things, can be denied basic rights, like the right to practice law when he's passed the Bar-- if they can deny that to somebody like Mr. Hale, then they can go after Evangelical Christian groups in the future, or some Orthodox Jewish groups. They can say to these groups, You don't believe in equal rights for homosexuals, you don't believe in equal rights for blank, blank, blank.

Therefore, we're not going to allow you to practice law. We're not going to allow you to have any positions of responsibility. I really do believe that this is one of those issues where if we accept the politically correct establishment saying that the Matthew Hales of this world have no rights, then who knows who's going to be next?

If nothing else, this case shows the hypocrisy of race relations in America. Hale is being denied his license to practice law because he believes whites are superior. Would the Illinois Bar do the same to a black supremacist? Probably not because there would be cries of "racism." Yet, there are no such cries for Hale because he's white. Also, Hale has publicly stated he will represent other white supremacists, so his oath to fairly represent his clients will only apply to them. There is a double standard when it comes to Hale's situation. If a member of a minority said he would help only the members of his minority, that person would be praised as someone who is "giving back to his community" and a "champion for his (or her) race." No such accolades are given to Hale because his minority isn't politically correct.

-- Thomas Lindaman, editor, The Bottom Line; http://www.commonconservative.com

See also: "When they came for the Baptists . . ."

Copyright 2001 © Issues & Views