Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.
That theory is "startling and dangerous" according to the Supreme Court, and according to me as well. Jebus.
Posted by Dr. Frank at April 20, 2010 05:42 PM | TrackBackMy intent for posting this link isn't to start partisan bickering. Frank's post simply reminded me about the Bill Neel incident several years ago.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-ordered-local-police-restrict-anti-bush-protesters-rallies-aclu-charges-u
Posted by: ben at April 20, 2010 06:43 PMIf you didn't want to start partisan bickering, then you shouldn't have posted that link, you MOTHER!
HOW DARE YOU!
Posted by: HOW DARE YOU! at April 20, 2010 10:02 PMIt's always been clear to me that both extremes of the political spectrum get aroused by the idea of adjusting the Constitution to outlaw things they happen to find offensive. Of course, each side has a very long laundry list of things that offend them.
What the crackpots on both sides share is a common, fervent conviction that the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for are infinitely less important than their own beliefs. This is how they try to get their collective feet in the door, by crafting scenarios where folks who value liberty are forced to vote "for" things like puppy torture. I am somewhat encouraged that the Supreme Court said no by an 8-1 margin...
Posted by: miker at April 21, 2010 12:02 AM