This statement below in your post is false : " and you said that was an aspect of Dennis you agreed with. "
What I argue is that Dennis demonstrates that lefists are foolish to support protection of fascistic racist speech as a way to get the Court to be protect leftist speech, because the Court is perfectly capable of protecting fascist speech and outlawing leftist speech, ignoring consistent legal reasoning, because law is politics not consistent legal reasoning.
CB
>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 05/18/01 01:50PM >>>
It's not the complete basis of your view, of course. But anyone interested
can go into the archives and find an exchange between us where I defend the
standard Brandenburg v. Ohio view that you need incitement to immanent and
serious illegality to warrant proscription, and you defend the view that the
mere prospect that the racists or fascists might someday win if we let them
talk is enough, given the content of their views and the bad things they'd
do. I pointed out that this is the view of Dennis, which is still
technically law, and you said that was an aspect of Dennis you agreed with.
--jks