tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post3543569832474510849..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: I Can Barely Hear Myself Think Over the Yapping of these Peasants!David Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-74095044915440485562011-07-02T10:52:06.308-07:002011-07-02T10:52:06.308-07:00Why does this decision vaguely remind me of Sarah ...Why does this decision vaguely remind me of Sarah Palin's view of the First Amendment, i.e., that it gives her the right to speak without criticism?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16903809956586132340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-26145470768248601562011-07-01T13:31:47.924-07:002011-07-01T13:31:47.924-07:00Andrew,
Thanks for noting the Sullivan article, I&...Andrew,<br />Thanks for noting the Sullivan article, I'll have to check it out. Based on your summary, though, I'm skeptical that Sullivan is quite accurate about either the left or the right. If liberals demanded "substantive equality in the political process," the ACLU wouldn't just fight for the Nazis' right to march in Skokie; they'd fight for Nazis to get all the same subsidies that the Boy Scouts do. Similarly, if the right only wanted non-interference with private ordering of the speech market, that wouldn't explain conservative support for governmental subsidies to Christian speech (e.g. for Ten Commandments displays and the like). Cases like <i>Wide Awake</i> indicate that conservatives want "substantive equality" in the form of equally available government subsidy of their speech.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-64387708413678407962011-06-28T06:37:29.762-07:002011-06-28T06:37:29.762-07:00A pretty odd decision.
I am not sure, Andrew, th...A pretty odd decision. <br /><br />I am not sure, Andrew, that either the Left or the Right's preferences for the First Amendment have much in common with the views that prevailed regarding the Amendment prior to very, very recent times. Rather, I think that both sides are arguing about what they would prefer the First Amendment to be about, not about its meaning on its own terms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-18090626769039810982011-06-27T13:15:20.410-07:002011-06-27T13:15:20.410-07:00Kathleen Sullivan wrote an article in response to ...Kathleen Sullivan wrote an article in response to Citizens United (<i>Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech</i>, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 143 (2010)) about the two views of the First Amendment at war with each other on the Court: the belief that the First Amendment is about substantive equality in the political process (the left's view), and the belief that it is about non-intereference with private ordering of the speech market (the right's view). The article is interesting, though in my mind, it grants way too much legitimacy to the right's completely unsupportable view.<br /><br />When viewed in this way, though, this decision is unsurprising if extreme. To them, it's not just about government getting out of the way or speakers - it's purely about leaving the speech market alone. It's not a superficial constitutional law version of Godwin's Law to invoke <i>Lochner</i> here - is precisely what the Court wants.<br /><br />Despite the principle being the same though, you're right that this case is pretty extreme. Lochner was more Citizens United. This case goes even farther. If Citizens United was a minimum wage law getting struck down, this case involved a law giving supplemental funding to someone that was forced into a below-living-wage contract that the government couldn't prohibit. I'm not sure the Lochner Court would have gone that far.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17986536672148560528noreply@blogger.com