More on the Murphy allegations of speech-basedplacementonno-fly list, and...

[DavidEBernstein at aol.com]

If I started a conversation on the list about whether Bill Clinton should  
have been impeached (surely a constitutional issue) because he killed  Vince 
Foster, which I know because I an eyewitness told me, would no one wonder  about 
the credibility of the eyewitness?  Or would we say that well none of  us have 
access to what really happened, so let's just work with the presumption  that 
Bill Clinton indeed killed Vince Foster (or had him killed), and just have  a 
nice constitutional law discussion about whether this constitutes a high 
crime  or misdemeanor as intended by the Framers, without any hint that the 
question  itself rested on a dubious proposition?
 
That said, if everyone wants to agree to discuss the very pregnant issue of  
what preemptive actions the gov't may properly take to stifle terrorist 
threats  without running afoul of the first amendment, and wants to do so without 
any  reference to Murphy's unsubstantiated allegations, I think that would be 
both  very interesting and much more productive.
 
In a message dated 4/11/2007 5:09:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
edlind at dickinson.edu writes:

I'm  almost finished with this, subject to whatever someone else might  
say.  But I must note that Prof. Volokh's understanding of the ad  
hominem fallacy in relation to this exchange is not mine.  Or maybe I  
should say that I agree with his definition but not his conclusion that  
it is inapplicable here.  To the extent that Prof. Murphy's  credibility 
and temperament as a witness to these events are relevant to  this 
discussion -- for constitutional law purposes -- I still fail to see  how 
claims about his alleged "grandiose sense of his own importance" or  "UFO 
sighting" or "who killed JFK" or "where Jimmy Hoffa is buried" have  
anything whatsoever with the argument about government action in  
response to participation at a rally that may be unconstitutional.   At 
the bottom of the well, that claim depends upon whether Prof. Murphy's  
name is on a list to which no one on this list (presumably) has access.  
The rest is just  conversation.

Doug







************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070411/9f83394e/attachment.html