Magistrate's Order Raises First Amendment and Other Issues

First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

I have given a good deal of thought as to whether this blog is an appropriate forum to write on this subject and decided it is.  While social media law obviously touches on many practice areas, perhaps its most foundational is that of free expression.  After all, social media is about expression, the immediacy with which our views can now be communicated, whether those views are ordinary or idealistic, and the potential consequences of using social media platforms to bring our views to others.  It is with this in mind that I bring to your attention a truly extraordinary order issued by a Tennessee Child Support Magistrate this week.

It seems Tennessee Child Support Magistrate, Lu Ann Ballew ordered that the first name of a seven month old infant be changed from Messiah to something else.  Specifically, she ordered it changed from Messiah to Martin. According to reports, Magistrate Ballew stated that “the word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that person is Jesus Christ.”  Whether what appears to be Magistrate Ballew’s view on religion and baby names serves as a proper basis for judicial action, we can of course defer to the Tennessee appellate court to decide and parse out the various First Amendment issues present in her order.  However, I would like to point to another statement Magistrate Ballew made in support of her decision.  She said, “It could put him at odds with a lot of people and at this point he has had no choice in what his name is.”  This is of particular interest in that it raises the issue of whether the power of the state may/can/should be used to limit expression on the part of a parent in order to protect a child from the persecution or ill will of third parties.  It’s reported that Magistrate Ballew stated that the decision was best for the child as he will be growing up in a largely Christian county and, consequently, at least in Magistrate Ballew’s view, will be subject to ridicule for having been given the audacious name of Messiah.  Magistrate Ballew’s order, if we are to follow it to its logical conclusion, is meant to protect Messiah, or rather Martin, from the persecution directed at him by certain members of society who believe that those named Messiah should be the target of persecution.

One can only wonder if Magistrate Ballew is familiar with the 1984 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Palmore v Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984). While Palmore dealt with race and adoption, and consequently drew the scrutiny and analysis required by such cases, a line in the majority opinion offered by Chief Justice Burger is informative.  The Chief Justice wrote, “Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”  While the equal protection clause may not be at issue in the Tennessee case, Chief Justice Burger’s admonition is still instructive, namely that the law is not meant to contemplate and then assist in the advancement of private biases as doing so can ultimately lead to the entrenchment of those biases rather than their dismantling.

While our expression has consequences, arguably on a minute to minute basis on social media platforms, so does the restriction of that very expression when it is sanctioned and empowered by the state and those meant to impartially carry out the readily apparent constitutional principles upon which our legal system is based.     

According to the Social Security Administration, Messiah was number four among the fastest growing baby names in 2012, so Magistrate Ballew might have her hands full.

You can read more about this case here.