|
I have no (constitutional) problem with regulating hate speech that advocates violence. In fact, that is the constitutional standard for regulating political (i.e., noncommercial) speech--does it call for imminent lawless action? But anything less than that--anything that is merely advocating a viewpoint, no matter how distasteful--should not be regulated. That is the price of free speech. In order for me to be able to shout my point-of-view at the top of my voice, I have to deal with someone else shouting the exact opposite point-of-view at the top of theirs. As repugnant as I find WBC and their hateful, intolerant views, I do think they have the right to voice them. As I said before, and as Tully said, the courts have every right to regulate perimeters, etc. The court may regulate time/place/manner--such as the cases that have granted injunctions forbidding abortion protesters from picketing a doctors house with a megaphone at 3 in the morning. Reasonable restrictions on speech are one thing--restraint of one particular view point is entirely different.
Or, at least that's the point of view of this Con Law nerd....
__________________
"With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."
-Desiderata
|