|
Supreme Court comes down on the side of free speech - 8-1
Part of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Stevens, yesterday's decision about selling dogfighting videos (note the remarkable sentence in bold):The Government thus proposes that a claim of categorical exclusion should be considered under a simple balancing test: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.' As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.' Roberts wrote the opinion. Alito was the lone dissenter. More in-depth discussion of the decision by an actual 1st Amendment lawyer at the link (Volokh Conspiracy). Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-04-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=295093 |