Pretty 'orrible, indeed. A bit of a "between the devil and the deep blue sea" sort of a situation.
My concern was that limiting those bigots (the Westboro lot, not the Supremes) would, ultimately, limit other speech. Because some people really do want to limit the freedom of others (the Westboro lot, for instance).
I just don't think that all speech is protectable speech. I know, saying that could be taken to mean 'no speech is protectable speech'. It's not, though.
When great legal minds allow organizations like that to continue spewing hate and bile, something's wrong. For sure, a liberal SCOTUS wouldn't have agreed.
Perhaps Roberts et al would feel differently if WBC set up shop outside of his church. Or home.
2 comments:
Pretty 'orrible, indeed. A bit of a "between the devil and the deep blue sea" sort of a situation.
My concern was that limiting those bigots (the Westboro lot, not the Supremes) would, ultimately, limit other speech. Because some people really do want to limit the freedom of others (the Westboro lot, for instance).
The whole thing is reprehensible.
I just don't think that all speech is protectable speech. I know, saying that could be taken to mean 'no speech is protectable speech'. It's not, though.
When great legal minds allow organizations like that to continue spewing hate and bile, something's wrong. For sure, a liberal SCOTUS wouldn't have agreed.
Perhaps Roberts et al would feel differently if WBC set up shop outside of his church. Or home.
Post a Comment