Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
To answer the first question, absolutely it is. It's not eliminating all of them, but the degree to which the interpretation is changed is the degree to which rights are in fact eliminated. And not only that, it's far worse than eliminating them via the proper method, since it would just contribute to the idea that the Constitution either A) doesn't matter, or B) can have it's meaning changed without actually being amended, a logical incoherence.
You are absolutely correct to point out that no rights are absolute, but there's a big difference between a specific threat against particular individuals and/or targets, and an advocacy of a general belief system, policy direction, etc.
|
Would it change your opinion at all to know that this level of First Amendment jurisprudence really only has been in existence since 1992?
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul drastically narrowed previous First Amendment freedom of speech cases such as
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942 - the 'fighting words' exemption decision) and
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952 - which upheld an Illinois law that made it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion")?
So really, this narrowing was a change to the accepted view of what fighting words and libel (though the libel reasoning was likely reversed by
New York Times v. Sullivan) were, without amending the Constitution.