Urging the government to assassinate someone vs. urgingothers todo that

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I much appreciate Sam's attention to this issue; but let me
briefly explain why, in this instance, I take a somewhat different view:

	1.  The on-topic question, as I understand it, is to what extent
the First Amendment should shield speech such as Robertson's.  My sense
is that many people think that it should certainly shield calls for the
governmental assassination of a Hitler.  Others think that, if it does
shield calls for the governmental assassination of a Chavez, that's at
least an occasion for regret and perhaps even a flaw in the doctrine.

	Given this, it seems important to allow at least some brief
discussion of how Chavez might be similar to or different from Hitler,
because only these comparisons can help us understand where the line is
drawn.  Should it be at those who would murder millions?  At all
dictators, on the theory that the tree of liberty must be watered at
times with the blood of patriots and tyrants?  At all people who have
sufficient dictatorial aspects to their regime?  At all people who are
sufficiently the enemies of the U.S.?  If the differences are
quantitative rather than qualitative, how is an administrable to be
drawn?  All these are important questions, to which the Chavez-Hitler
comparison is relevant.

	I agree that we shouldn't have dozens of posts on this subject,
precisely for the reasons Sam mentions.  But the reason I didn't step in
to admonish people myself (well, the reason other than that I was asleep
in my Pacific time zone when the posts came out) is that I think one or
two such posts are within the bounds of propriety (though naturally
Sam's expression of concern about such posts is as well).

	2.  I do think, though, that the question whether Pat Robertson
is behaving in a suitably Christian way is probably off-topic, unless we
think that this is fairly closely related to the constitutional
question.

	3.  Finally, one other factor that I don't want people to
overstress, but that I think has to be acknowledged:  Robertson isn't
just a political figure, but the founder of the organization for which
Jim Henderson is a lawyer.  Jim might know Robertson personally, and at
the very least respect him a great deal.

	It seems to me that some degree of latitude must be available
for points of personal privilege, when someone comes to the defense of a
person whom he respects using arguments or data that respond to an
on-list criticism of the person.  Again, we shouldn't get carried away
with this:  A twenty-post thread on the personal, intellectual, moral,
and religious merits or demerits of Pat Robertson would not, I think, be
appropriate here.  But a bit of flexibility strikes me as apt,
especially when personal relationships may be involved.

	In any case, hope this makes sense,

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Samuel Bagenstos
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:37 AM
> To: JMHACLJ at aol.com; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Urging the government to assassinate someone vs. 
> urgingothers todo that
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering where our list moderator is to tell us 
> that the question whether Chavez is properly compared to 
> Hitler, while perhaps marginally relevant to constitutional 
> law questions, gets beyond our principal area of expertise 
> and probably generates more heat than light?
> 
> ====================================
> Samuel R. Bagenstos
> Professor of Law
> Washington University School of Law
> One Brookings Drive
> St. Louis, MO  63130
> 314-935-9097
> Personal Web Page:  
> http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bagenstos/index.html
> Disability Law Blog:  http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
> 
> >>> <JMHACLJ at aol.com> 8/24/2005 8:28 AM >>>
> In a message dated 8/24/2005 9:15:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> RJLipkin at aol.com writes:
> 
> I can't speak for the  Christian justification of Bonhoffer's 
> action. But if 
> I were called to do so,  I think it would rather easy to do 
> on the supposition 
> that Christianity is not  committed to pacifism or nonviolence as an 
> inviolable imperative. Hitler was  engaged in world conquest 
> and racial cleansing on 
> an unimaginable scale. He  (Hitler) represents a paradigmatic 
> example where 
> negotiation, diplomacy, and  compromise were impossible. 
> But the conclusions Bonhoffer reached about the need to 
> remove Hitler  appear 
> to have been derived while Europe was still negotiating with  
> Hitler.  Now, 
> at home, Bonhoffer might have understood the futility of  it. 
>  But not abroad.
> 
> It  strikes me as somewhat silly even to say that Chavez is 
> nowhere near that 
>  ballpark.  But I'll say it anyway. Should the very extremes 
> regarding  
> assassination be paradigmatic of normal foreign relations, 
> pray tell, what  becomes 
> of Christian love or a decent secular commitment to 
> respecting  humanity?
> 
>  
> There are differences, undoubtedly.  First among them would 
> seem to me  to be 
> Bonhoffer's conclusion that the stand he took he needs must 
> have taken  from 
> within Germany, rather than from a comfortable abode in 
> England or the  US.  
>  
> But, please, having spent my youth with the children of 
> Castro's torture  
> victims, do not tell me that there is any qualitative 
> difference between one  
> brutal dictator like him or like other who have risen over 
> time and  Hitler.  
> Quantitative, yes; qualitative, no.  Mao's murderous regime  
> claimed its dozens 
> of millions because his qualities as a brute coincided with  
> the quantities of 
> his potential victims.  That others have not "outshined"  because the 
> quantities of potential victims is smaller does not make them 
> better  humans or more 
> noble.
>  
> Jim Henderson
> Senior Counsel
> ACLJ
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, 
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others.
>