Some people are beneath contempt — like the sickos who sell gleefully-shot videos of animals being killed. We ought to exclude them from polite society by denouncing them and choosing not to associate with them.
What we can't do, however, is take away their free-speech rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that just now, in an 8-to-1 decision, affirming, in U.S. vs Stevens, that the First Amendment may not be suspended for speech that is unpopular, really unpopular, or really really unpopular. In fact, exactly the opposite. Really really unpopular speech is why the First Amendment exists.
It seems that everybody but Justice Sam Alito gets that.
[via Marc Randazza]
While I agree the decision is correct, I suspect it doesn't have as much to do with free speech as it does with the religious fundamentalism of the court. "Christian" theology maintains that animals are objects with which human beings may do as they wish. This is the often expressed and practiced philosophy everywhere in this country, but especially down here in the South.
Given the nature and history of the court, I think it likely that at least as many justices were voting for this "Biblical" right to "use" animals as were voting for some concept of free speech.
Posted by: hermesten | Tuesday, April 27, 2010 at 02:52 PM