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.
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.