General discussion


Freedom of speech, Mike DeWine, John Roberts

By Absolutely ·
Who else is bothered that nominee to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when questioned by "SENATOR MIKE DeWINE R-Ohio" (C-SPAN 2), answered that the First Amendment protects political speech, but not necessarily speech in general?

For context, the Senator raised the topic of pornography on the Internet, mentioned children, the sacred cow of the day, and a recent case about political campaigning or activism at a US Post Office. The candidate for the Supreme Court indicated that the First Amendment's protection of free speech implicitly means political speech only. I agree that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, political dissidence was the most persecuted type of speech, and thus most in need of protection, but I do not agree that the First Amendment can be honestly interpreted to mean that only political speech is a right, and that expression on any other topic, if not of immediate political importance, can rightly be regulated by the government unless the speech is itself criminal, meaning incitement to violence, or evidence of a crime, as in the case of images of child pornography.

Pornography is filthy and child pornography is among the most predatory varieties of evil, if not the very most, but limiting free speech because it is not related to politics seems narcissistic coming from politicians and judges. Finally, freedom of speech is a quality of life issue, and any speech that does not physically threaten another person or result from a crime is among my inalienable rights.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Related Discussions

Related Forums