First of all, I didn't write that, it was an opinion post to the WSJ, which
> I quoted.
As I am well aware. What is your point?
Second, some "opinions" should indeed be punishable. There are some opinions
> that you should keep to yourself, some opinions that are so repulsive that a
> civilised society is entitled to punish.
>
> Legal opinions should not be exempt, in fact even more so.
So what exact parameters do you propose? Do you have anything to offer more substantial than "people (and especially attorneys) who say bad things should stop"? (And if you're going to dictate the opinions that may and may not be legitimately offered by an attorney, or anyone else, I'll find your suggestions much more impressive if we agree that it's *your* attorney when *you're* the one in the dock, or deciding how to stay out of it. )
And if arguing that unambiguous atrocities are perfectly compatible with
>> bourgeois law is a crime, a lot of us should have been packed off to the
>> Supermax a long time ago.
>>
>
> Yes, well if you encouraged someone stupid enough to listen to you
Come now. Aside from being unnecessarily (and unimpressively) insulting, are you really going to force me, in order to prove my point, to compose a list of the unambiguous atrocities that are perfectly compatible with bourgeois law? What would be the point of that?
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."