[Peace-discuss] Lou Dobbs is dangerous

[C. G. Estabrook]

There's a nice moment in Garson Kanin's 1946 play "Born Yesterday" -- a v. 
political play, eviscerated in 1950 and 1993 movie versions -- where the corrupt 
senator exclaims, "Holmes! My personal god!"  --CGE


--- 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 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...


     ...

     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