Paul Krugman's column in today's New York Times should be required reading for all. Here is how it begins:
"Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s--a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an 'attempt to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration' and label them as terrorists.
But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Museum, the analysis looks prescient."
How does the Homeland Security report and these two acts of right-wing terror relate to freedom of speech? Today--unlike the early 1990s--we have a bevy of right-wing writers, opiners, and news readers whose rants encourage disturbed people like these two murderers. We Americans cherish our freedom of speech perhaps above all others, but when does freedom of speech have its limitations?
The matter rose to the attention of the Supreme Court during World War I about the right to distribute handbills against the draft in one of the famous constitutional law cases, Schenck vs. the United States. In the unanimous ruling Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated what still stands as the criterion for limiting speech--when the speech creates a "clear and present danger." A person does not have the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The right of the audience to avoid a catastrophe caused by mob panic trumps the right of someone to yell whatever comes into his head.
Is it time to invoke the "clear and present danger" argument against the spewers of hate that incite disturbed individuals? When does the right of the extremist commentators and pundits to create havoc end and our rights as a citizenry to safety begin?
"Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s--a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an 'attempt to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration' and label them as terrorists.
But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Museum, the analysis looks prescient."
How does the Homeland Security report and these two acts of right-wing terror relate to freedom of speech? Today--unlike the early 1990s--we have a bevy of right-wing writers, opiners, and news readers whose rants encourage disturbed people like these two murderers. We Americans cherish our freedom of speech perhaps above all others, but when does freedom of speech have its limitations?
The matter rose to the attention of the Supreme Court during World War I about the right to distribute handbills against the draft in one of the famous constitutional law cases, Schenck vs. the United States. In the unanimous ruling Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated what still stands as the criterion for limiting speech--when the speech creates a "clear and present danger." A person does not have the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The right of the audience to avoid a catastrophe caused by mob panic trumps the right of someone to yell whatever comes into his head.
Is it time to invoke the "clear and present danger" argument against the spewers of hate that incite disturbed individuals? When does the right of the extremist commentators and pundits to create havoc end and our rights as a citizenry to safety begin?
No comments:
Post a Comment