Jewish Champions of First Amendment
Bob Sheridan
bobsheridan at earthlink.net
Mon Sep 11 07:51:16 PDT 2006
There are examples of both purpose and effect, such as Lenny Bruce and
the porn-king that Eric Schlosser writes about in Reefer Madness; name
eludes me.
Bob S.
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> David's point, which strikes me as correct, is that "supportive
> of free speech" (which is what "champions of First Amendment" tends to
> mean, at least as to the Free Speech Clause) is different from "enhanced
> our notion of speech by actually using it." The former focuses on
> purpose, the latter on effect: One can help bring about increased
> speech protection even if one would like to bring about a regime that
> will dramatically suppress free speech (such as Communism), or for that
> matter even if one is largely unconcerned about free speech. It would
> be odd to call either such person, though, a "champion of [the] First
> Amendment," it seems to me.
>
> Eugene
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 5:49 AM
>> To: DavidEBernstein at aol.com; fred.shapiro at yale.edu
>> Cc: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; SFeldman at uwyo.edu
>> Subject: Re: Jewish Champions of First Amendment
>>
>> To a great extent the some of the "communists" were indeed
>> supportive of free speech and in fact enhanced our notion of
>> speech by actually using it. Besides a "champion" need not
>> support those he champions.
>>
>> Paul Finkelman
>> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>> and Public Policy
>> Albany Law School
>> 80 New Scotland Avenue
>> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>>
>> 518-445-3386
>> pfink at albanylaw.edu
>>
>>
>>>>> Fred Shapiro <fred.shapiro at yale.edu> 9/11/2006 6:55:03 AM >>>
>>>>>
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> None of the folks Paul listed who were members of the
>>>
>> Communist Party
>> or were
>>
>>> otherwise adherents of totalitarian ideologies could reasonably be
>>>
>> called
>>
>>> "champions of the First Amendment," though they were certainly
>>>
>> willing to use (or
>>
>>> abuse, in some cases, by making claims about themselves and the
>>>
>> motives for
>>
>>> prosecution that they knew to be false) the First Amendment to their
>>>
>> advantage
>>
>>> when it suited their interests. But by that standard, many Grand
>>>
>> Wizards of
>>
>>> the KKK, not to mention the head of the American Nazi Party during
>>>
>> the Skokie
>>
>>> case, were "champions of the First Amendment."
>>>
>> I share David's lack of admiration of the Communist Party,
>> the KKK and the American Nazi Party. But if we define as
>> "champions of the First Amendment" litigants who, through
>> their active efforts or through just
>>
>> being the occasion for lawyers and judges to expand or
>> preserve Bill of
>>
>> Rights protections, figured in landmark cases, then some
>> unappealing types will fit the definition. The standard
>> explanation, of course, is Felix
>>
>> Frankfurter's "It is a fair summary of history to say that
>> the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in
>> controversies involving not very nice people."
>>
>> Speaking of Frankfurter, did Cardozo, Goldberg, or Fortas
>> qualify as champions of the First Amendment in any way?
>>
>>
>>> Also, I'm not sure of what Felix Frankfurter's specific views on the
>>>
>> First
>>
>>> Amendment were, but if "champion of the First Amendment" means
>>>
>> "someone who care
>>
>>> deeply that the First Amendment, as he understood it, was properly
>>>
>> applied,"
>>
>>> he would likely qualify. If it means, "someone who thought the
>>>
>> First
>>
>>> Amendment should be interpreted expansively in ways that please
>>>
>> modern liberal
>>
>>> sensibilities," then I think the definition doesn't quite match the
>>>
>> phrase.
>>
>> The nature of civil liberties is such that people who
>> interpret the Bill of Rights expansively get regarded as
>> champions of the Bill of Rights,
>>
>> whereas conservatives who care deeply about applying the Bill
>> of Rights in more restrictive ways tend not to be
>> characterized in that way. I don't think the original
>> questioner was looking for that kind of "champion."
>>
>> Fred Shapiro
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> Fred R. Shapiro Editor
>> Associate Librarian for Collections and YALE BOOK OF QUOTATIONS
>> Access and Lecturer in Legal Research Yale University Press,
>> Yale Law School forthcoming
>> e-mail: fred.shapiro at yale.edu
>> http://quotationdictionary.com
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060911/283ae54f/bobsheridan.vcf
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list