Opinion: Bikini-clad baristas serve up a lesson in free speech


SEATTLE — Amazon, which has made this city the epicenter of a retailing revolution, is not the Northwest’s only commercial disrupter. In the nearby city of Everett, Liberty Ziska and some other bikini baristas, have provoked the City Council to pass, unanimously, ordinances requiring baristas to be less nearly naked when they work. The baristas, in turn, have hired a lawyer and made an argument that is germane to current disputes about freedom of speech. Their argument, they might be surprised to learn, is Aristotelian. Sort of.

The police chief and city attorney allege that bikini barista stands attract a clientele that sometimes behaves badly, and that some of the baristas do, too. The city reports “a proliferation of crimes of a sexual nature occurring at bikini barista stands,” which it primly suggests has something to do with “the minimalistic nature of the clothing worn by baristas.” Seattle’s ABC affiliate reports that “in 2014, the owner of Java Juggs pleaded guilty to running a brothel out of several stands.” Henceforth the baristas must wear at least shorts and tank tops. The new dress code cannot be faulted for vagueness. Indeed, it has notable specificity that has the baristas incensed about the examinations and anatomical measurements that law enforcement might require.

What makes this a matter of more than mere ribaldry is that the baristas have unlimbered heavy constitutional artillery. They fire it in ways pertinent to the manner in which freedom of speech is debated and defended — or not — where it is most important and most besieged: on campuses. The baristas say:

The ordinances banning bikinis violate the First Amendment because they are “content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions” that “impermissibly burden and chill” their freedom to “convey their messages of female empowerment, positive body image” and other things. Their bikinis are “a branding message” communicating “approachability and friendliness.” The ordinances regulate only speech “common and fundamental” at bikini barista stands, targeting them “because Everett does not agree with their message” and restricting “channels of communication.”

In recent lectures at Georgetown and American universities in Washington, Greg Weiner, an Assumption College political philosopher and frequent contributor to the Library of Law & Liberty website, urged participants in the campus arguments to reason as Aristotle did. That is, to be less deontological (rights-based in their advocacy) and more teleological (ends-based). To argue deontologically is to treat speech as an autonomous good, regardless of its moral or social purpose, if it has one. To argue teleologically is to stress why — for what purpose — we should value speech.

Aristotle — here he was not the baristas’ ally — defined human beings as language-using creatures, which makes the expressive value of tattoos, piercings, body parts, etc., less than fundamental. The Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, Weiner notes, has generally accorded the most robust protection to speech, and speech that is political, broadly defined — concerned with securing the goods of self-government. The fundamental purpose, although not the only purpose, of the right to free speech is to protect a panoply of other rights.

Everett should have some latitude to balance other public goods against the expressive pleasure and even commercial advantages that Liberty Ziska and her colleagues derive from sartorial minimalism. Universities should protect almost absolute freedom for arguments about politics, classically and properly defined broadly as the subject of how we should live.

Writes for The Washington Post.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Billionaires desperately need our help

It is so hard to be a billionaire these days! A new yacht can cost $300 million. And you wouldn’t believe what a pastry chef earns — and if you hire just one, to work weekdays, how can you possibly survive on weekends? The investment income on, say, a $4 billion fortune is a mere $1 million a day, which makes it tough to scrounge by with...
Opinion: Alabamans should do right thing on Roy Moore problem

The allegations and evidence against Senate candidate Roy Moore are piling up to the point of indefensibility. To the Washington Post’s extensively sourced story accusing him of misconduct toward girls as young as 14, recent days have added news of an additional accuser and a report from a retired police officer saying Moore was unofficially...
PERSPECTIVE: The magic of Thanksgiving togetherness

The calm before the rush of Thanksgiving preparation invites reflection. My mom, although extraordinary in matters of the heart, was really not a very good cook. I’m the first to admit her Thanksgiving turkey was a tad dry, and the cauliflower-au-gratin was s bit more watery than Velveeta cheesy. Yet she managed to create the best of what Thanksgiving...
Opinion: Alabama rolls toward a high-stakes skirmish

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — But for the bomb, the four would be in their 60s, probably grandmothers. Three were 14 and one was 11 in 1963 when the blast killed them in the 16th Street Baptist Church, which is four blocks from the law office of Doug Jones, who then was 9. He was born in May 1954, 13 days before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board...
Opinion: You’re not worried enough about judicial appointments

You are not worried enough. Granted, that may seem a nonsensical claim. Assuming you don’t belong to the tinfoil hat brigades who consider Donald Trump the greatest thing to hit 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue since Abraham Lincoln left for the theater, you’ve spent the last year worrying as much as you know how. There has certainly been no shortage...
More Stories