Tuesday
Mar092010
Testing the First Amendment
2 Comments
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s State of the Union address was “very troubling” and the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”
(via HotAir)
Democrat underhandedness in finding ways to pass this grab bag of crap notwithstanding, the public overwhelmingly understands that socialized medicine is an impending disaster of epic proportions. What the public doesn’t seem to understand is why the Citizens United case was decided correctly. (Of course, polls are funny things)
Chief Justice Roberts may not have been directly speaking to the decision, but it’s nonetheless encouraging to hear him speak on the scene at all. If the President of the United States is going to condemn the Supreme Court for a decision he doesn’t like by brandishing his rhetorical six-shooter from the national bully pulpit, the Commandant of the tribe on the receiving end of the blast should, nee, must fire back accordingly. Personally, I’m a bigger fan of how Justice Sam “Jersey Boy” Alito handled the matter, but that’s simply a matter of dispositional preference.
The point is that we need to do a better job of explaining to people why Citizens United was the right decision for everyone who doesn’t have the means to be heard on their own. Freedom of Association exists not only so that like-minded individuals may congregate according to their own desires free from government intrusion, but also to provide a means of amplifying their individual right to speak what they deem to be the truth. Without the latter, what real purpose is there in protecting the former?
Another test is about to unfold and for the record, you can consider me as absolutist as they come in matters of the first freedom. The despicable, horrid, soulless ghouls associated with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Chuch deserve their right to be heard just the same as you and I. The Supreme Court is taking up the appeal of the reversal of a $5 million damage award in favor of the family of a fallen Marine. In another time’s forgotten space, Cpl. Snyder’s father would have walked across the street, delivered unto Phelps’ minions a healthy taste of Marine justice and no judge in his right mind would ever have acknowledged a charge against him in reprisal. That we don’t live in that world anymore is regrettable; but it remains nonetheless true that punishment of the speech itself is a path down which none of us should wish to go.
Russ
Reader Comments (2)
Excellent point. There is an additional utility to free speech in that we can know what others are thinking and planning. For example, it the KKK, or other group is talking in the town square, we know who they are. We know what they're thinking, and what they're planning. If you ban them because they are reprehensible (and they ARE), they go to ground. They don't go away, and we will nothing about them...until something blows up.
Nothing delivers the truth quite as effectively as the light of day. You're absolutely right Matt. There's a reason why the best antidote to "bad" speech is more speech. You hit on one of those reasons.
As much as I despise the tenets of fundamental Islam, I would never, ever condone or support a law outlawing its proselytization. Let it be heard. Let it be heard loud and clear. In the end, the ideas it espouses will only be exposed for what they are by other speech destroying its credibility. I'm not scared of speech, ever.
Great comment. Thanks.