Mark Morford declined to eulogize Jerry Falwell, and instead dedicated his column to repeating some of the more horrifying quotes that spewed from the deceased’s mouth during his lifetime. My favorite from the list? “The First Amendment is not without limits.” Partly because it is demonstrably true. Of course, what Mr. Falwell was presumably saying is, “The First Amendment ought to be more limited.” Now, I’m reasonably certain Mr. Falwell was referring to the Speech Clause, suggesting, essentially, that parody and pornography ought not be protected speech (or at least not as protected).
But I grant my favor to the quote, and am amused by it, because the First Amendment also includes, inter alia, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Did Mr. Falwell support fewer constitutional protections for religious activities? Likely not. But he said it. Which really just illustrates my concern about quotes, generally.
I dunno… I know the case-law and some statutes don’t support my position, but I think “…no law…” and “…abridging freedom of speech…” are pretty clearly an indication that no limits were intended. The gents who wrote the Constitution weren’t exactly provincial dipshits. They kind of knew what they were doing, and I’m sure that in the rough-draft stage at least one Negative Nancy must have brought up a parade of horribles which they disregarded.
Comment by Ol' Dale — May 18, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
I kind of did the same thing on MySpace, posting a bulletin with some of his gems, my favorite being that if lawmakers paid closer attention the the bible they never would have been in favor of racial desegregation. I didn’t make a judgment, but I guess it’s up to every individual to decide if the world is better off without him.
Comment by J. Minus — May 18, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Dale, are you really against restraining e.g. defamation or fraud under certain circumstances?
Comment by Chris — May 19, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Fraud isn’t really a speech issue– it’s taking someone’s money, albeit using speech (lies) to do so. Defamation needs to have the civil remedies intact, but there should be no criminal laws regarding it.
Comment by Ol' Dale — May 19, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
The state’s recognition of a cause of action is itself “a law.” So unless you’re going to give effect to the “Congress” portion of the First Amendment, you’ve already tread outside the “no law” absolute.
Comment by Chris — May 20, 2007 @ 10:29 am
And “taking” money? A successful fraudster convinces someone to give him money, albeit with lies. This is a classic speech issue: can I say these things and not be penalized for the consequences? Does the fraudster simply have to return the money willfully given–the remedy if the donative intent is shown to have been not present by way of e.g. insanity, rather than fraud–or is the fraudster penalized in some way. I would argue it is appropriate to impose a penalty. But I would also argue that goes against a superbroad reading of the First Amendment.
Comment by Chris — May 20, 2007 @ 10:33 am