From my most recent CAIVN article: In all fairness, critics of the Robert Court's First Amendment decisions don't seem to base their opposition on judicial philosophy and interpretation of the law as written. For them, the issue is not whether a law violates the Constitution's prohibition on abridgements of free speech, but whether they happen to like the outcome of the free exercise of a particular kind of speech. Note that their objections to the court's recent rulings are rooted in the negative results they perceive as stemming from speech they don't like, whether it's political speech or video games that they find obscene.
Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page
Read the entire article here.
Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page