Commentary - Free Speech for Terrorists?
Commentary - Free Speech for Terrorists?
Free Speech for Terrorists?
Here's an interesting article arguing that terrorist speech does not belong under the protection of the first amendment. It's also an interesting (and pretty fair) thumbnail history of free speech in the United States which I found interesting. I haven't decided yet if I agree with the conclusions. Here are some thought-provoking excerpts:
"The impluse to defend individual liberty is admirable, but, since individual liberty is not always society's paramount concern, admirable intentions do not mean its defense is necessarily wise."
"Moral clarity...postulates that some evils are so palpable we need not further test them in the marketplace...Do we really need additional ideological thrust-and-parry to know, for example, that the advocacy of genocide, or rape, or the indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is condemnable under any and all circumstances?"
"Exactly what meaningful dissent will we miss if we proscribe the advocacy of murder, or of militant Islam's clarion call to violent jihad?"
Free Speech for Terrorists?
Here's an interesting article arguing that terrorist speech does not belong under the protection of the first amendment. It's also an interesting (and pretty fair) thumbnail history of free speech in the United States which I found interesting. I haven't decided yet if I agree with the conclusions. Here are some thought-provoking excerpts:
"The impluse to defend individual liberty is admirable, but, since individual liberty is not always society's paramount concern, admirable intentions do not mean its defense is necessarily wise."
"Moral clarity...postulates that some evils are so palpable we need not further test them in the marketplace...Do we really need additional ideological thrust-and-parry to know, for example, that the advocacy of genocide, or rape, or the indiscriminate mass slaughter of civilians is condemnable under any and all circumstances?"
"Exactly what meaningful dissent will we miss if we proscribe the advocacy of murder, or of militant Islam's clarion call to violent jihad?"
posted by unca | 4:50 PM
2 Comments:
I am not a first amendment expert but doesn’t some of this fall under the Smith Act?
I just looked it up:
Smith Act, 1940, passed by the U.S. Congress as the Alien Registration Act of 1940. The act, which made it an offense to advocate or belong to a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the government, was the basis of later prosecutions of members of the Communist and Socialist Workers parties. In 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court restricted the application of the Smith Act to instances of active participation in, or verbal encouragement of, specific insurrectionary activities.
Yes, I see your point. The author does mention the Smith Act but doesn't say why what he's advocating wouldn't already be covered by that act. Hmmm. I'll have to wait and see what the letters to the editor say in the next issue. Thanks for the post.
Post a Comment
<< Home