July 3, 2012
Re " Free speech -- even for liars ," Editorial, July 1 When the writers of the Constitution included the right to free speech, they had in mind protecting political and religious statements. They did not intend to include pornography, hatred and especially lying by public officials. Claiming to be a war hero when you are not is an insult to all of us who have served in the military. Shame on the "appointed" Supreme Court members who were wrong in overturning a just verdict by a lower court and ruling against a law passed by the "elected representatives" of the people, and shame on The Times for supporting them.
March 9, 2012 |
The recent exchange between an atheist and a judge in a small courtroom in rural Pennsylvania could have come out of a Dickens novel. Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin was hearing a case in which an irate Muslim stood accused of attacking an atheist, Ernest Perce, because he was wearing a "Zombie Mohammed" costume on Halloween. Although the judge had "no doubt that the incident occurred," he dismissed the charge of criminal harassment against the Muslim and proceeded to browbeat Perce.
April 21, 2010
A nearly unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a resounding reaffirmation of the importance of free speech in a case arising from the sordid "sport" of dogfighting. As is often true in 1st Amendment cases, the victor in this decision is an unsympathetic figure. Robert Stevens, a Virginia pit bull breeder, advertised videos portraying dogfights, as well as an "instructional video" on using pit bulls to hunt boar. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison for violating a federal law criminalizing the creation, possession or sale of a "depiction of animal cruelty."
September 28, 2009
An increasing sensitivity to the suffering of animals has been reflected both in public attitudes and in the law. Michael Vick's involvement in an illegal dogfighting ring provoked appropriate public outrage and resulted in a 19-month prison stay for the football star. Movie credits assure the audience that "no animals were harmed in the making of this film." Greater protection for animals is an important objective, but, as with other desirable goals, it can be pursued overzealously and at the cost of constitutional rights.
December 28, 2013
Re "'Duck' and a free society," Opinion, Dec. 24 Like many conservatives chiming in on the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, Jonah Goldberg appears to hold a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech: It is the freedom to say what you want without fear of government persecution, which is different from freedom from criticism. "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson exercised his free-speech rights when he uttered offensive comments about gay men and women. His critics then used their free-speech rights.
October 20, 2011
This newspaper ardently supports the right to free speech, even when that speech is controversial, hateful or ignorant. But no right is absolute, and Patricia McAllister, a substitute teacher with the Los Angeles Unified School District, crossed a line with her anti-Semitic comment at Occupy Los Angeles. "The Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and the Federal Reserve … need to be run out of this country," she said in the taped interview with Reason TVthat then went viral on YouTube.