FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

[Jenifer Cartwright]

O Gee, where to start, Carl... Maybe I'll just point out another of yr hateful little lies -- accusing me of wanting to ban hate speech, which I never said, as well you know -- and leave it at that. 
 --Jenifer  

--- On Thu, 8/13/09, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:


From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:25 PM




On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:


Of course you should shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, if there is a fire..

The famous line comes from an utterly reprehensible SC decision in 1919, Schenck v. United States. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. How had Schenck "falsely shouted fire"?  He had distributed flyers opposing the draft!  The SC in its majesty ruled that the USG could punish him for that, regardless of the First Amendment.

(The great jurist Holmes, fond of sententious sayings, was also admired by some peculiar people for his ruling in Buck v. Bell [1927], permitting the involuntary sterilization of a young Virgina woman: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Expert testimony came from a field worker for the "Eugenics Record Office" -- Dr. Arthur Estabrook... 

No relation, I presume?

I agree that O.W. Holmes Jr. was significantly overrated as a jurist.

 
Nazi eugenics legislation was based on the American practice, established by Holmes; the US SC has never reversed the general concept of eugenic sterilization.)

And Holmes' decision in Schenck was not overturned for 50 years. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the court limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current SC standard -- the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Obviously the hate speech that Jenifer et al. want banned does not pass that test.  --CGE





LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:




While I do not entirely disagree with you on this Carl, I do think there are
certain special occasions in which freedom of speech and action are and
should be limited (i.e., screaming "fire" in a crowded theater); but clearly
a precisely stated standard like "speech and actions that present a provable
clear and present danger of inciting others to take actions that create a
provable and clear danger or in themselves create such a clear and provable
danger" should be established and used in exercising both prior and
after-the-fact censorship, which should be determined in a court of law with
rights to appeal.  I think that this holds for all categories of speech and
action including "hate speech."

In reference to the subject line, " Lou Dobbs is dangerous," we are all
dangerous.  All the animals are equally dangerous; but some are more
effective than others in being dangerous.


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090813/04d9c2bb/attachment.htm