Maggie Gallagher gets it
Okay, actually I'm the last one to "get it". Or close to the last, at any rate. Read her encouraging commentary, Is nothing sacred?
My thoughts exactly. Why shouldn't this nonsense be banned? If you've got something to say about the war, say it; nobody's stopping you. But our Constitution's protection of your speech doesn't entitle you to disrupt any and every solemn assembly to do so.
If you feel that prevents your message from having maximum impact, well, welcome to the civilized world. There are a few lust-driven sodomites who'd like to besiege churches every Sunday, demanding little kids be delivered to them to satiate their perverse appetites. Sorry, but the First Amendment grants no protection of such wickedness. Go take a cold shower and check the status of your AIDS-drug-testing application. But I digress.
There must be some reasonable jurisprudence which offers an acceptable compromise here. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test may have been appropriate for his day, when society en masse would have frowned on such contempt with censorious force. (Or a few burly men would've told these cowards to shut their foul mouths or risk a post-funeral whipping.)
Enough of this "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" bunk. Freedom of speech has limits, just as Justice Holmes observed. And as Cindy Sheehan found out, decorum sometimes trumps free speech, and often is enacted into law. These folks who discover, to their chagrin, that most people aren't interested in what they have to say are ever seeking ways to intrude upon others in order to compel attention to their message.
Speak your peace; we have no problem with that. The First Amendment guarantees you that freedom - regardless of content. But don't make the mistake of thinking it guarantees you an audience.
"Frustrated and appalled legislators in five states are seeking to ban protests at funerals."
My thoughts exactly. Why shouldn't this nonsense be banned? If you've got something to say about the war, say it; nobody's stopping you. But our Constitution's protection of your speech doesn't entitle you to disrupt any and every solemn assembly to do so.
If you feel that prevents your message from having maximum impact, well, welcome to the civilized world. There are a few lust-driven sodomites who'd like to besiege churches every Sunday, demanding little kids be delivered to them to satiate their perverse appetites. Sorry, but the First Amendment grants no protection of such wickedness. Go take a cold shower and check the status of your AIDS-drug-testing application. But I digress.
"Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think such a law would be inconsistent with democratic freedom, any more than I believe the First Amendment really does require us to permit flag burning... It is perfectly possible to protect sacred symbols or sacred moments in ways that do not violate core principles of free speech necessary to robust, democratic life." (Ibid.)
There must be some reasonable jurisprudence which offers an acceptable compromise here. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test may have been appropriate for his day, when society en masse would have frowned on such contempt with censorious force. (Or a few burly men would've told these cowards to shut their foul mouths or risk a post-funeral whipping.)
Enough of this "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" bunk. Freedom of speech has limits, just as Justice Holmes observed. And as Cindy Sheehan found out, decorum sometimes trumps free speech, and often is enacted into law. These folks who discover, to their chagrin, that most people aren't interested in what they have to say are ever seeking ways to intrude upon others in order to compel attention to their message.
Speak your peace; we have no problem with that. The First Amendment guarantees you that freedom - regardless of content. But don't make the mistake of thinking it guarantees you an audience.
posted by Lear's Fool | 5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home