Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc, I'm not sure which part of my post you are referring to as simply not true. The time, place and manner restrictions? Very clearly even speech which receives the highest First Amendment protection can be regulated as to the time, place and manner of its publication. I have a pretty absolute right to voice my opinion about who I plan to vote for in an upcoming election. But, I don't have a right to do so through an amplifier, pointed at your bedroom window, at 3:00 a.m. The content of this speech is not subject to government regulation, but the time, place and manner in which I make it is. As to the current test applied to speech which advocates lawless activity, this is actually a slight expansion of previous interpretations of the First Amendment. Yes, the Supreme Court is composed of nine individuals who change over time. But, it is extremely rare that the Court makes an abrupt and complete reversal of a previous decision. Without researching it, I can only think of this partially happening once in Free Speech cases and that was, again, an expansion of the right, when, under certain circumstances, protection from libel charges was extended to publishers who had actually printed false statements. Remember also that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the final word. The people have the power to amend the Constitution. See my post to Walt regarding the need for judicial interpretation. I don't think it can be reasonably argued that judicial interpretation is not necessary. Try drafting a free speech guarantee that you would not subject to judicial interpretation and that you feel would survive over time. Sorry if we're off topic. Bryan - -----Original Message----- From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Freedom of speech and political correctness (off topic) >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! >