BLACKSBURG, Va. – The District of Columbia announced that it will appeal a lower court’s decision in the case of Smith vs. the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court.

Winston Smith, a longtime resident of the District, filed suit three years ago in federal court seeking to overturn the district’s 30-year old ban on open, written expression of undesirable opinions. Smith contends that the ban violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of individual self-expression. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Smith’s favor last month. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it will be the first time in several decades that the Court has addressed the First Amendment.

“This is a major victory for residents of the District and the country as a whole,” said Emmanuel Goldstein, Executive President of the National Writers Association (NWA). “For too long our First Amendment rights have been under attack by elitist liberals who claim to be acting in our best interest. It is refreshing to see members of the judiciary who recognize the inherent right of the individual to express his or her thoughts in writing without worrying about the feelings of others.”

The District’s leaders, on the other hand, were less enthused.

“We are deeply saddened that the Court of Appeals has chosen to undo laws that have worked to avoid offending our citizens’ sensibilities,” said D.C. Mayor Michael Daley in a news conference after the ruling.

Attorneys for the District argued that the First Amendment applies only to states, and the District has Home Rule privileges, which allow it to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Should the Supreme Court take the case and rule against the District, it would represent a growing change in the legal interpretation of the First Amendment. For years, the prevailing thought among constitutional scholars has been that the First Amendment’s self-expression clause is a collective right reserved to state and federal officials on behalf of the people.

Federal courts have been divided.

Two years ago the Ninth Circuit favored the collective-right interpretation, whereas the Fourth Circuit more recently ruled that self-expression is an individual right.

This latter viewpoint has also manifest in the legislatures of most states. Within the past 20 years, 37 states have passed so-called “shall-issue” laws for written personal opinions. Virginia, for example, issues Written Opinion Permits (WOP) to residents who are 21 years of age, have passed a criminal background check, and have demonstrated basic competency in the English language. Fingerprinting is a sometimes-exercised local option in the Commonwealth. Two states, Alaska and Vermont, require no permit of any sort to publish a personal opinion.

“This is a huge slap in the face to everyone who has worked to keep people’s feelings safe,” said Mark O’Brien, spokesman for the Grady Campaign to Prevent Thought Violence. “There are over 10,000 documented incidents of people being offended every year in the United States by illegal opinions. People have a right to live, work, and learn in an environment that makes them feel safe from harmful ideas.”

O’Brien went on to say that the Grady Campaign will continue to work for sensible expression laws such as the federal Thought-Free Schools Act that was enacted five years ago. That legislation was passed in a rare coalition of advocacy groups on both sides of the issue.

“Firstly, we [the NWA] believe in absolutely thought-free, zero-tolerance schools. That means no personal opinions in America’s schools, period,” said the NWA’s Mr. Goldstein when the bill was being debated. “However, there is no reason to restrict self-expression rights of law-abiding adults who have not committed thought crimes of hate in the past.”

Public opinion has been divided as well. A recent Gallop/Newstime poll found that 42 percent of Americans favor fewer restrictions on self-expression, while another 37 percent favor more. A small percentage (15 percent) believes that there should be no government regulation of opinions, with an even smaller group (6 percent) advocating the complete prohibition of free thought altogether. The poll had a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

“I grew up in a family of writers,” said Bradley Murphy, editor of the alternative newspaper The Weekly Curmudgeon. “I took inspiration from my father and went into journalism when I was younger. I got my WOP when the law was first passed and have been issuing my own opinions ever since. As far as I can tell no one has ever been harmed by them.”

Others are not so confident.

“Words can be very powerful weapons,” said Dr. Myron Bancor, a psychology professor at PCU. “Hearing the wrong idea can cause months – if not years – of mental agony for young people. It is our duty as a society to protect our most vulnerable members and to ensure that they always feel safe from emotional distress.”