Lawyers Should be Indicted (Re: [lbo-talk] Doug Henwood profile

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Fri May 28 12:14:53 PDT 2004


So, Nathan, a Communist lawyer could not defend Communists who were accused of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the US govt by force and violence? That was the charge in US v. Debs, for the legallly uninitiated; the S.Ct affirmed the convictions, and the case has never been overruled. Under the Patriot Act, prosecutions like that are not merely possible but actual, as with that professor from the Univ of S. Fla. And of course you don't need USAPA, as the Stewart case goes.

Nathan, remember what liberalism is supposed to be about: among the first and foremost things it stands for is, defending the right to speech that you hate.

You are sounding genuinely Sidney Hook like here: recall that he defended firing Communist professors on the grounds that expressing support for their revolutionary goals merged into conspiring with the Communists to further those goals. He wrote a book: Heresy Yes! Conspiracy No! in which he defended this proposition. Is that where you are at? He always called himself a socialist, but ended up supporting Nixon and Reagan. I think liberals who abandon free speech (and in some cases, I don't say yours, due process) are risking being as liberal as the later Hook was a socialist.

jks


> nathan wrote
> But when a lawyer expresses support for the exact
> criminal activity
> they are defending, folks rightly question whether
> the lawyer doesn't
> merge into being a co-conspirator. On the fringe
> right, David Hale
> among the neo-Nazis was denied a law license on that
> basis.
>

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list