Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:19 AM 1999-01-10 -0800, Bryan Caldwell wrote: > >There are many other areas which receive lesser >First Amendment protection or no protection at all. For instance, commercial >speech (that which proposes a commercial transaction) has been afforded a >lesser degree of First Amendment protection by the U.S. Supreme Court than, >say, political or religious speech. Obscenity receives a lesser protection >as does child pornography. Then, of course, there are the matters of slander >and libel - where First Amendment protections have wide application, but are >not absolute. > >The generally accepted test for regulating speech which inspires lawless or >dangerous activity is that the speech must (1) be directed to inciting or >producing imminent lawless action; and (2) it is likely to incite or produce >such action. > >And remember, even protected speech can often be subject to reasonable time, >place and manner restrictions. > This simply is not true: it states how the Constitutional guarantees are enforced, but leaves out what the Constitution actually says. The US Supreme Court INTERPRETS the Constitution, but, as with any other nine folks, they are fully capable of wandering off into error. And so they have done, consistently, with Free Speech cases. It is important to realize that, in the past forty years, there have always been at least three, and often four, Justices who are flat, absolute, free-speech types. I suggest those interested might wish to READ the Constitution, and then READ twenty or so Free Speech cases handed down by the Supreme Court in this century. The clear language is unequivocable; the waffling done by the Court -- again, almost always in five/four decisions -- is a rather frightening example of how our rights have been eroded. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!