Sigh. You can rely on John Mage for legal pronouncement -- John's a distinguished attorney. Shane should check with his brother before holding forth on the law.
The First Amendment protects, by its express language "freedom of speech." Shane interprets this to mean "all speech," -- which would include for example, solicitation of murder or extortion. As well as defamation, like: "Shane solicited the murder of his his obnoxious newphew." Does Shane really think that there should be now law prohibiting solication to murder or permitting actions for defamation?
In addition, by its express language, the 1A says that it is "Congress" that shall pass no law impinging on the freedom of speech. Shane sort of ignores the fact that that nasty Supreme Court he hates so much decided in the 1920s to incorporate the First Amendment to apopl;y against the states to prevent State Legislatures from shutting us up as well. And the Courts have interpreted "Congress" to mean "the government," including the Executive (including administrative agencies) and the Judiciary.
I agree that the courts are often wrong, especially when they rule against me. Well, my clients. At least the pro bono ones. However, you see Shane's literalism comes with a price.
However, the courts ("our masters") are the interpreters of the law, not Shane, and they have read "freedom of speech" to include most speech except those in four unprotected categories, matter: defamation (libel and slander), incitement to illegal activity, obscenity, and "fightin' words" (which last is essentially obsolete). It is not onbious that they are wrong in principle: The term "freedom of speech" does not on its face mean the same as "speech", and anyway eveb us extremist ACLU types don't want all speech protected.
After the Warren Court fixed the defamation standard so you could say what you liked about public figures as long as it wasn't with recklesss indifference to the truth, the main hot button remains obscenity -- in my view an absurd category and one that should be dropped from the unprotected list in part because no one know what it is (Justice Stewart was reduced to saying that he knew it when he saw it).
That, and the fact that I have nothing against speech that merely appeals to prurient interest and otherwise lacks socially redeeming value and offends community standards. I even like some it myself. If you don't like Hustler mag or Deep Throat, don't buy or watch it. It's absurd to make its sale and distribution a crime.
Anyway Brian, yes, you can do things you can't say or show. That's the law as currently interpreted by the S.Ct. in its evil granduer.
hjs
--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> >Obscene speech, illegal in most jurisdictions, is
> not
> >protected by the First Amendment, and may be
> banned....
>
> Not so. It is *explicitly* (nothing can be more
> explicit than "no law")
> protected by the First Amendment. It is not
> protected by the
> Supreme Court which has never hesitated to
> "distinguish" away
> whatever part of the Constitution its masters choose
> to ignore.
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and
> does not
> consent to be called
> Zeus."
>
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/