Student Protests Against Horowitz Ad]

[Justin Schwartz]

The First Amendment protects racist speech. In fact, the basic case that  
states the current version of the "clear and present danger" exception, 
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), is a Klan case. The BRC _may_ be 
trying to say that this isn't the law, but, since they expressly disclaimed 
that reading, why not take them at their word? Maybe, like Charles, they 
wish that wasn't the law, but it is certainly true that the First A neither 
justifies racist speech nor entitles anyone to indulge in it. What it does 
is to protect the morons who do from the police.--jks


>From: "Dennis" <dperrin13 at mediaone.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Student Protests Against Horowitz Ad]
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:16:31 -0500
>
> > As you explain, there is no contradiction here. So what's your 
>criticism?
> > --jks
>
> > > > 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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com