I seem always to be at a disadvantage in arguing for toleration of ugly speech even if it creeps right up to the edge of being a direct threat, as some of the sexist rants noted by Wendy Kaminer and in Joan Walsh’s Salon post to which Wendy linked. My disadvantage comes from the fact that I do not appear to be a member of what today has come to be called a “historically disadvantaged group.
Last July, the city council of Hazelton, Pennsylvania passed several ordinances aimed at ridding the city of illegal immigrants, by penalizing employers who hire them and landlords who provide them with homes. The ordinances were, in part, responses to an increase in violent crime, which town officials blamed on immigration.
The ACLU is no stranger to hypocrisy (to facilitate fundraising, it has voluntarily pledged to comply with federal blacklisting law that it otherwise opposes;) but it is not guilty of the inconsistencies that James Huffman imagines in his National Law Journal column. The ACLU’s criticism of Charles Stimson’s attacks on lawyers defending Guantanamo detainees was not at all inconsistent with its previous expressions of concern about the record of then Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
The ACLU prides itself, perhaps more than any other organization, on the importance of standing on principle. But James L. Huffman, of Lewis & Clark Law School, has an arguable case for accusing the leading civil liberties organization of a glaring insistency this week in his op-ed on “Using Clients to Impugn Lawyers” in this week’s National Law Journal
By Wendy Kaminer
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”1939 ruling
These are among the most disputed words in the U.S. Constitution. People who support gun control, or prohibition, generally argue that the Second Amendment conditions the right to bear arms on service in a state militia, merely establishing a “collective” right.
Having spent decades fighting in the trenches on the front lines of the battle over campus censorship, and having co-founded a nonprofit that seeks to remedy these widespread violations of academic freedom, I can vouch for the fact that the spirit of censorship is more alive in higher education, among administrators and faculty members, than anywhere else in our society.
What’s perhaps most striking about some campus censors today is the boldness with which they refuse to hear opposing views, much less provide forums for them. You don’t have to be an axe murderer or current or former dictator to be blackballed by some campus "progressives." You could simply be former Harvard president Larry Summers, whose March 14th talk at Tufts University about undergraduate education was boycotted by some Tufts professors.
Harvey chides me for “glossing over” the “rights” of parents who sued the Lexington school district for exposing their elementary kids to sympathetic books about gay families. They lost their case in federal court, when Judge Wolf dismissed their federal constitutional claims and their claims under state law. As Harvey notes, the parents are free nonetheless to press their state law claims in state courts: these claims were dismissed without prejudice –- not because this is a hard case, as Harvey suggests -- but because state courts are the appropriate arbiters of novel state statutory claims.
Wendy Kaminer too readily glosses over the rights of the parents who lost their case against the Lexington school authorities in early March when United States District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed their complaint seeking to exempt their elementary school children from a curriculum promoting tolerance of homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular.
Last month, the religious right lost a local skirmish in the culture war when federal district court Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Lexington school officials did not violate the Constitution by distributing two books about gay families in a Lexington elementary school. Wolf dismissed a case brought by 4 parents who regard homosexuality as sinful and argued that the effort to teach tolerance and respect for gay people and families interfered with their First Amendment rights to raise their children according to their own religious beliefs.
It is said that the history of war is written by the victor. But history written by governments, or by pressure groups, is notoriously unreliable. This is where scholars come in handy.
It was with this in mind – not to mention that I’m currently litigating a case involving the censorship, from Massachusetts state curricular materials, of any dissident views on whether the Ottoman Turks committed a Genocide on their Armenian population during and after World War One – that I attended a lecture at Harvard on March 13th by Guenter Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Given all the reasons to fear that the end might be near (global warming and the spectre of nuclear or biological terrorism to name just a few,) you might expect people to gain some sense of perspective about the “dangers” of free speech. You would be wrong.
Speech phobias are on the rise. They're partly related to sex phobias, and they partly reflect widespread liberal abandonment of civil liberty when it makes previously subordinated groups uncomfortable.
What is it about pornography that drives sane people crazy? And by "people," I mean law enforcement agents, legislators, and judges, in particular. This week the Supreme Court turned down an appeal from an Arizona man who was sentenced to a mandatory 200 years in prison merely for downloading child porn. Morton Berger was prosecuted for 20 seperate counts of sexual exploitation of a minor for possessing (and by possessing, they mean downloading) 20 images of child porn (and by child porn, they mean "any visial depiction in which a minor is enagged in exploitative exhibition or other sexual conduct."