Stomping out free speech

[Newsom Michael]

The article is interesting, indeed.  The Canadian approach, and that of
Sweden and other countries, is built on a rather different baseline, or
a rather different set of assumptions about incitement, bullying and the
like.  There is nothing inherently unreasonable in deciding to protect
people against verbal attacks based solely on factors that MAY be
unchangeable or immutable.  Indeed, there may be something to be said
for such an approach, given the social patterns of violence in this
country, and the probable fact that verbal abuse can easily escalate to
physical abuse.  (For example, beating up gay people happens, beating up
straight people - by gays - doesn't happen, or if it does, it happens so
seldom that I am hard pressed to recall a single instance of such
physical violence visited on straights, because they were straights, by
gays.)
 
Whether our Constitution permits such a decision is another matter.  I
claim no particular expertise on free speech questions.  But, by the
same token, one cannot escape the fact that some reasonably decent
societies have made such a decision.  (At least I think that Canada and
Sweden are reasonably decent societies, but I suspect that some would
argue against that view.)  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Beckwith [mailto:francis.beckwith at mac.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:09 AM
To: Religion Law Mailing List
Subject: Stomping out free speech
 
For some reason the linked forwarded by Rick Duncan didn't work. Here's
one that does:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040412.shtml

Frank 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040413/d5f48a42/attachment.htm