Did the Coast Guard Fillet Free Speech on the Fourth of July?
A Hudson Valley sloop is booted out of a parade for speaking its mind.
UPDATE (12:30 PM, July 9, 2026): As I wrote below, the Coast Guard says that participants in the Sail4th maritime parade had agreed not to display “political or politically charged” messages, referring, presumably to a participation agreement with Sail4th, the parade organizer. Since then, I have been directed to a news article reporting that Clearwater Executive Director David Toman “said that no such restrictions existed, only that ships were instructed not to carry banners that could be considered ‘promotional.’” Thus, there appears to be a disagreement about whether a restriction on political or politically charged speech, in fact, existed.]
While I was churning ice cream on the Fourth of July, Andy Revkin stopped me in my (moose) tracks.
As he reported in his newsletter,
the Coast Guard, apparently on orders “from above” . . . ordered the captain of the Sloop Clearwater, launched in 1969 by Pete Seeger and friends to clean the Hudson, to “turn your vessel around” instead of taking its place escorting a Portuguese square rigger up the Hudson in the big Fourth of July Sail 250 event.
When Captain Rory Kane asked Coast Guard officials why his sloop was being booted, he says he was told it was because of banners displayed on the sails, which read, “Save the Clean Water Act” and “Indigenous Rights, Racial Justice, Climate Solutions.” The Clearwater left the maritime parade without further incident.
According to the Coast Guard, participants in the event had agreed not to display "political or politically charged" messages—a condition that had been imposed by Sail4th, the private organizers of the parade. The Clearwater, which is operated by an organization called the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, has long used its sails to display slogans for environmental and social justice causes. (The Coast Guard says Clearwater was given the choice either to remove the banners or leave the parade, and that Clearwater "declined to remove" them. A Hudson River Sloop Clearwater representative says the Coast Guard never offered the option of removing the banners.)
What do we think of this?
Would it surprise you to learn that America’s social media feeds are in a tizzy? Defenders of the Clearwater say their right to free speech has been squelched.
Defenders of the Coast Guard say rules are rules. Besides, aren’t Americans entitled to at least one patriotic moment free of polarizing debate?
I can honestly see both sides.
But if you ask me to don my law-professor goggles, I’d say the Coast Guard filleted Clearwater’s right to free speech on the Fourth of July. Maybe new factual revelations will change my mind, but for now my anchor’s set.
Here’s why.
The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prohibits the government from suppressing or forcing conformity with particular ideas or messages. As a general matter, content-based restrictions—like a restriction on “political” or “politically charged” messages—are “presumptively unconstitutional” and seldom allowed unless a compelling need demands it (like avoiding a riot). That’s not the case here.
If the government is suppressing the speech of the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, this is basically an open-and-shut case. (Unless you think the government, by giving some support to this private parade has transformed it into a state-scripted spectacle—a proposition I’m not buying.)
But is it the government that’s doing the suppressing?
Remember, the prohibition against “politically charged” messages was not drafted by the government. It was part of a participants’ agreement presumably drafted by Sail4th, a private organization. The agreement was not a law, it was a simple contract between two private entities, Clearwater and Sail4th, in which the former agreed (assuming the reported facts are correct) to limit its speech for the privilege of taking part in a privately organized maritime display. Because the First Amendment limits only state action and not private action, could we thus say this fracas is just a private dispute, with no whiff of constitutional despoilment?
I love a crafty argument, but that ship won’t sail.
The problem is the Coast Guard boat with a machine gun in the bow. Disputes over private agreements generally don’t involve vessels like that. Imagine I walk into a fancy restaurant wearing jeans and a polo shirt. A sign at the entrance says all men are expected to be “in business attire.” If I sit down at a table, I may be violating a private agreement (often called a revocable license) between me and the restaurant. If the restaurant owner decides I don’t meet the standard, she can offer me a sport coat, ask me to leave, or decide to waive the rule. You can imagine any of those things happening. What you probably can’t imagine is that a police officer (perhaps seeing me through the window) would burst in from the street, whistle bleating, and demand I leave the building. We object to the police officer, first, because no one has asked him to enforce this private rule (if I refuse to leave at the owner’s request and she calls the cops, that’s another matter) and, second, because it’s not up to him to decide what “business attire” is. [I’ve revised this paragraph since the original posting to emphasize the police officer’s use of discretion in judging my dress. 7/6/2026, 6:38 PM DCT]
Yet something conceptually similar appears to have happened here. There is yet no indication that Sail4th objected to Clearwater’s messaging or even understood it to be a violation of the agreement. Assuming it did object, Sail4th had no opportunity to decide how to react—whether to order the banners taken down, expel the participant, waive the rule, or seek damages at a later date. Instead, armed government officials zoomed in, concluded the agreement had been breached, and ordered the transgressors out of the security zone.
Why did armed federal officers rush in, brandishing a machine gun, to administer a private agreement between a parade organizer and a band of Pete Seeger devotees?
Apparently because the banners displayed on Clearwater’s sails read, “Save the Clean Water Act” and “Indigenous Rights, Racial Justice, Climate Solutions.”
To me that looks like unexcused state action suppressing protected speech.
I don’t know where the good ship Clearwater is sailing next, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find it moored outside a federal courthouse.
SOUNDINGS (This performance will put a spring in your step all day long!)
I agree with Professor Verchick!
Thank you for this - I was looking for an evaluation of the Clearwater incident from a First Amendment point of view.
Of the four calls on Clearwater's banners, three can be read as calls to enforce existing law, and the other (Climate Action) is only "politically charged" because the corrupt current administration says it is - polling says the majority of Americans agree that climate action is needed, and probably agree with the other three calls, as well. It is hard to see how calls for action that the large majority of Americans support is "political or politically charged".
Finally, to the question posed by the author, "[A]ren’t Americans entitled to at least one patriotic moment free of polarizing debate?", I'd say the answer is a resounding "NO!". Political debate between entrenched sides is part of the foundation of this country.