tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post5514040953121254565..comments2024-03-28T06:53:24.022-05:00Comments on a blog about school: The value of “verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance”Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12919030671050831251noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-25119782128105769422014-03-04T02:03:16.384-06:002014-03-04T02:03:16.384-06:00Never thought I'd be citing this one:
"S...Never thought I'd be citing this one:<br /><br />"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. [...] The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. [...] By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each."<br /><br />---Anthony Kennedy, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (Opinion of the Court).Julie VanDykehttps://www.facebook.com/julievandyke.firehorse66noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-35914601897283807952014-03-04T01:08:55.530-06:002014-03-04T01:08:55.530-06:00Chris, I like this one:
"Those who won our in...Chris, I like this one:<br />"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. [n4] Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.<br /><br />Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. A police measure may be unconstitutional merely because the remedy, although effective as means of protection, is unduly harsh or oppressive. Thus, a State might, in the exercise of its police power, make any trespass upon the [p378] land of another a crime, regardless of the results or of the intent or purpose of the trespasser. It might, also, punish an attempt, a conspiracy, or an incitement to commit the trespass. But it is hardly conceivable that this Court would hold constitutional a statute which punished as a felony the mere voluntary assembly with a society formed to teach that pedestrians had the moral right to cross unenclosed, unposted, wastelands and to advocate their doing so, even if there was imminent danger that advocacy would lead to a trespass. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly." <br />BRANDEIS, J., Concurring Opinion<br />Whitney v. California 1927Julie VanDykehttps://www.facebook.com/julievandyke.firehorse66noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-76793173053810525172014-03-03T09:26:21.450-06:002014-03-03T09:26:21.450-06:00I just don't see the public policy-making upsi...I just don't see the public policy-making upside of silencing critics/negative public comments at school board meetings. Enduring a few minutes of foolish or unmoderated speech (if there is, in fact, such speech occurring at board meetings) is surely a small price to pay for all members of the community being free to speak their minds if they choose to participate in public comment.Karen Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075997477474697121noreply@blogger.com