Who says I'm arguing "liberal theory"? I'm not represent "liberal theory" here. I'm saying one very simple thing: The right of free speech is absolute only according to a narrow definition of the term. If "speech" means expressing yourself-- intellectually or emotionally or aesthetically or whatever-- then that is protected in all instances. But if you're trying to intimidate or slander or criminally conspire, then it's not protected. If you say "I hate Jews," that's protected. But if you write "I hate Jews" on the door of the house of a Jew, that's intimidation. I admit this is not some solve the problem of free expression in all cases, but maybe it clarifies it a little. It's a question of what is really speech, and what is merely posing as speech.
>In the case of
>copyright violation, it makes no difference whether your
>utterance is an opinion or something else.
I didn't say it did make a difference. Passing off someone else's words as your own has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
>If people are aruging that _all_ State restraints on expression
>should be abolished, they haven't said so.
>
Nobody besides you is arguing that. Even I'm not arguing that. I'm just
narrowing the definition of "expression" to the point where whatever is
left could be protected in *all* instances.
Ted