Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Free speech roundup

  • ACLU of Oregon has it right: even in near aftermath of violent Portland attack, government cannot revoke rally permits because of disapproval of the message being sent [Ronald K.L. Collins, Scott Shackford/Reason, John Samples/Cato]
  • “The ‘eye for an eye’ theory of respecting free speech is particularly pernicious because it represents the worst sort of collectivism, something the principled Right ought reject.” [Ken White, Popehat] Courts have been doing a stellar job of upholding free speech. Other sectors of U.S. society, less so [same]
  • tl:dr version: yes, legally it can. “Can Charlotte Pride parade exclude Gays for Trump float?” [Eugene Volokh]
  • “California AG agrees: Calif. law does not preclude private citizens from displaying Confederate battle flag at county fairs” [Volokh, earlier]
  • “Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media” [David Shimer, New York Times] Per David Meyer-Lindenberg, German police launched 234,341 investigations over insult or other hurtful speech last year [Scott Greenfield] A vigilant comrade has reported your tweet of Wednesday last to the constabulary as doubleplus ungood [Matt Burgess, Wired, last August on Met Police plans in U.K.]
  • On inviting controversial speakers: “A response to Scott Alexander” [Flemming Rose, Cato]

Filed under: , , , ,

5 Comments

  • Regarding the “Eye for a Eye” post. That’s why I like reading Ken’s posts. He can put into words my feeling about things that a lay person like me can understand.

    Even about Ponies!

  • If Charlotte Pride can exclude Gays for Trump, then why couldn’t the NYC St. Patrick’s Parade committee exclude Irish Gays?

    • When the Irish gay groups sued the organizers of the NYC St. Patrick’s Parade, the courts all said that they could exclude gay groups. However, the gay activist ran a public pressure campaign against the committee and the committee eventually caved despite winning in court.

      • By MattS

      • U.S. Supreme Court in Hurley v. IAGLBG of Boston: First Amendment does not permit Massachusetts public accommodations law to require private group to admit organized gay contingent to march against its wishes. Souter writing for unanimous Court:

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-749.ZS.html

        Not only would the First Amendment ordinarily defeat a suit against the Charlotte organizers, but it is not clear that the plaintiffs can cite any applicable public accommodations law to sue under in the first place.

      • Lose on Foley Square, win in Times Square. Great.