Bear in mind, ladies and gentleman, that every time you violate, or propose the violate, the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia [are] making a rod for your own back. Because the other question raised by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes is simply this: who’s going to decide, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what the harmful consequences [are] going to be that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor?
I wouldn't trust anyone to do that job. Especially myself.
I'd also add that a number of passages in the speech are personally offensive to me. And if you read the speech, chances are pretty good you'll find something that offends you. I'll let you find those passages yourself, but you know what? That's the point. So when you read something like this:
While many 1st Amendment scholars defend the right of the filmmakers to produce this film, arguing that the ensuing violence was not sufficiently imminent, I spoke to several experts who said the trailer may well fall outside constitutional guarantees of free speech. "Based on my understanding of the events," 1st Amendment authority Anthony Lewis said in an interview Thursday, "I think this meets the imminence standard."Ask yourself this -- do you trust Anthony Lewis to be your censor? And if so, why?
No comments:
Post a Comment