>From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: judicial tyranny
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:14:35 -0400
>
>No need to go into the archives. Anybody can get my argument from me on it
>right here, and what you say below is a misrepresentation of my argument. I
>have never said I agree with any aspect of Dennis, and I have never argued
>Dennis as a basis for outlawing fascistic racist speech.
>
>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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com