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: Pruitt, Carson trapped by the trappings of power

It’s not an iron law that power corrupts. But it’s often a good way to bet. The interesting question is: Why does power corrupt so many people? The way I see it, power — money, fame, celebrity, authority or some mix of them all — lowers the cost of indulging human nature. This is one of the central reasons elites wreak such...
Opinion: Trump’s new world order: America first — and him, too

Even critics of President Donald Trump, like me, breathed sighs of cautious relief after he managed to meet with leaders of the G-7 and North Korea without starting World War III. Yet, in characteristic fashion, even that low bar was not enough for Trump. “(E)verybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office,” and “There...
Opinion: The lesser cruelty on immigration

Let’s start with the easy part. The policy of separating children from their parents at the southern border, delivering them into a bureaucratic labyrinth while their fathers and mothers await trial or petition for asylum, is the wickedest thing the Trump administration has done so far — and you can tell exactly how wicked by observing...
Opinion: Can Republicans and Dems reach compromise on immigration?

Rep. Kevin Yoder has two daughters, ages 2 and 4. A busy schedule of political obligations requires the Kansas Republican to be separated at times from those precious little people. It’s a feeling many parents know. Those two girls were on his mind recently when we spoke by phone to discuss the fates of thousands of would-be immigrant children...
Opinion: Singapore summit was a historic snooker

The headline writers adore the word “historic.” It was ubiquitous in reporting on the April meeting between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in. Kim shook Moon’s hand and then guided him over the military demarcation line to step onto North Korean territory. This prompted swoons. If that was a bona fide gesture of peaceful intent, time will...
More Stories