Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?

[russ_watters]

"Radical" is precisely the right word [nice pun in that one!]. That is the word used when you overturn a century of law. How is that not radical? It is both liberal and radical.

It's not radical because it fits the intent of the Constitution. It was radical when 40 years ago (or whenever that case was that was overturned...) the USSC made a decision not in fitting with the Constitution. It is not radical to fix the error.

The founding fathers may have been radical when they wrote the 1st Amendment, but it isn't radical to uphold it now.

He was stating an opinion based on his long career in journalism.

That's hilarious, Ivan. I can't believe you used that as an argument! That could take us into a big discussion about the huge problem that is an activist media! (Oh wait, we already have that discussion: Fox=activist conservative = bad, Everyone else=activist liberal = good...right). I'm confused, though - how is the USSC so broken that they didn't consult the experts in the media before making their decision? Ehh, I guess we could fix that by appointing reporters to the bench of the USSC from now on.

In all seriousness, though, why post a rant with no relevance? I've already linked the opinions of the foremost subject matter experts for you to base an argument on (the dissenting opinion of the USSC). And if you want 3rd party opinions, at least go for one that actually addresses the issue. Nowhere in that rant does he mention the Constitution or the 1st Amendment. He doesn't like the way things work now? Fine. But if he wants to change it, he has to show that the change fits with the Constitution (or argue that we amend it).

What boggles my mind is that on this issue liberals are in favor of a pretty radical restriction in freedom of speech. That seems to go against the general idea of liberalism. I'm thinking that the reason people such as Moyers make no relevant arguments is that they don't want to go down that road, so they pretend their position doesn't take us there. It's easier to convince people to give up their liberty if you argue it obliquely.