I would point out 1. That citing Jackson's common sense statement that "our Constitution is not a suicide pact," is hardly citing the dissent as either persuasive or controlling. 2. That dissent is also not one bit authoritarian, that's simply your opinion. And 3. you fail to cite even one inconsistency to support your claim as supportive of my supposed cognitive failure. Makes me wonder, were you by any chance a JR Biden supporter?
You can't understand that Jackson's dissent is authoritarian, cites one of the most authoritarian opinions in the 20th Century, Schenck, and upholds an extremely vague and oppressive rule regarding speech.
The quote you use is Jackson's justification for wanting to suppress speech. So it's bullshit. It means nothing.
Then you say "I'm not an authoritarian." I thought we were reaching an agreement but you've dug in on this Jackson dissent, which was and is wrong.
Proving - if nothing else - that you are, in fact, a lawyer. lol. But I enjoy our back and forth. Again, I don't think you actually read the entirety of Jackson's dissent, on which he was not alone. Jackson said clearly "No one will disagree that the fundamental, permanent and overriding policy of police and courts should be to permit and encourage utmost freedom of utterance." Hardly the position of an "authoritarian."
Happy to engage with you. I sat on my couch today. I did read it.
The sentence you just quoted is known as "lip service." Like the passages in many foreign constitutions which say freedom of expression is allowed but then undermine it with caveats and limitations like Jackson.
I'm focused on his bottom line - he wanted to uphold a rule which imposed a hecklers' veto on speech in the name of public order.
Sure and maybe I lean toward your view that the prosecution went too far but it wasn't a crystal clear issue and the Court even split 5-4 I believe. So calling the dissent '"authoritarian" goes a bit far when there was in fact, violence involved. That was my original point, along with my belief that our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
I would point out 1. That citing Jackson's common sense statement that "our Constitution is not a suicide pact," is hardly citing the dissent as either persuasive or controlling. 2. That dissent is also not one bit authoritarian, that's simply your opinion. And 3. you fail to cite even one inconsistency to support your claim as supportive of my supposed cognitive failure. Makes me wonder, were you by any chance a JR Biden supporter?
You can't understand that Jackson's dissent is authoritarian, cites one of the most authoritarian opinions in the 20th Century, Schenck, and upholds an extremely vague and oppressive rule regarding speech.
The quote you use is Jackson's justification for wanting to suppress speech. So it's bullshit. It means nothing.
Then you say "I'm not an authoritarian." I thought we were reaching an agreement but you've dug in on this Jackson dissent, which was and is wrong.
Proving - if nothing else - that you are, in fact, a lawyer. lol. But I enjoy our back and forth. Again, I don't think you actually read the entirety of Jackson's dissent, on which he was not alone. Jackson said clearly "No one will disagree that the fundamental, permanent and overriding policy of police and courts should be to permit and encourage utmost freedom of utterance." Hardly the position of an "authoritarian."
Happy to engage with you. I sat on my couch today. I did read it.
The sentence you just quoted is known as "lip service." Like the passages in many foreign constitutions which say freedom of expression is allowed but then undermine it with caveats and limitations like Jackson.
I'm focused on his bottom line - he wanted to uphold a rule which imposed a hecklers' veto on speech in the name of public order.
Sure and maybe I lean toward your view that the prosecution went too far but it wasn't a crystal clear issue and the Court even split 5-4 I believe. So calling the dissent '"authoritarian" goes a bit far when there was in fact, violence involved. That was my original point, along with my belief that our Constitution is not a suicide pact.