> > > The First Amendment does
> > > not justify racism or entitle hateful people to
> > > destabilize and render dangerous the learning
> > > environments of Black youth.
> >
> >BRC contradicts itself. Above it says that Horowitz is "constitutionally
> >entitled" to express his views; below it says that the First Amendment
> >"does
> >not justify racism." Which is it? The First Amendment doesn't "justify"
> >anything save the right to speak without fear of state interference.
Perhaps "contradict" is not the word I want. It just seems that the BRC wants to protect itself from appearing censorious, conceding that Horowitz has his rights, but then at the same time it suggests that the First Amendment doesn't cover racist speech (which in my understanding, it does). Judging from its tone, I think the BRC leans more to the latter view than to the former.
DP