3 ms·
Noooo, he's saying that solving the finer points of free-speech issues with an uncritical and literal interpretation of the first amendment is absolutist. More
by lmkg 17y ago
Noooo, he's saying that solving the finer points of free-speech issues with an uncritical and literal interpretation of the first amendment is absolutist.
More specifically, corporate personhood didn't exist at the time of the writing of the first amendment. It's somewhat disingenuous to take the lack of qualification in the first amendment as canonical on the matter. It's (arguably) absolutist because it's appealing to the exact wording out of context, when the current import of that wording is a historical accident. A non-absolutist viewpoint needs to acknowledge historical, legal, or social context.
- Semiapies 17y ago"he's saying that solving the finer points of free-speech issues..." Which of course requires that one consider this question a "finer point", or that the wording is "out of context". The Internet didn't exist at the time, either, but that doesn't mean free speech doesn't apply to it - or that there's a controversy we should teach on that question. That some people want to restrict speech in any given way does not mean free speech should be up for grabs in any given context. The general constitutional-law take on civil liberties is that they come before other legal concerns unless one can demonstrate a serious and clear factor that outweighs them. To argue against the civil liberty interest without demonstrating that outweighing factor is far more ridiculous than to stand pat by the civil liberty interest. That said, I'm not continuing this thread of argument.