Which is the problem with a lot of hypothetical problems. Some laws have been struck down under the First Amendment because their ambiguity "chills" free speech, but it's often a tough thing to prove and the Supreme Court has been narrowing the general chilling of speech doctrine a lot in recent years. It upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance rules against just such a challenge, saying to plaintiffs to come back later when an actual violation of their free speech occurs.
Which is essentially what this court said.
Nathan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: court upholds CDA
----- Original Message ----- From: "BklynMagus" <magcomm at ix.netcom.com>
-I am all for respecting the will of the legistlature, but -what happens when the will is so narrow-minded that lives -are put at risk (think of all the safe sex information that will -be rendered unavailable, not to mention the queer info that -serves as a life line for young queers). (I am
Does the law target safe sex information?
If it did, that would at least be a better challenge for mobilizing support than what was described in the initial email.
Part of my annoyance with legal campaigns is that because they don't need political support, they often choose cases in a way that almost seems designed to alienate the public.
Legal campaigns such as that by the NAACP may have used the courts strategically, but always with an eye to supporting other legislative campaigns.
-- Nathan Newman
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk