Ken WhiteI was procrastinating from making pie and so I wrote a post: why the observation “well, there are exceptions to the First Amendment” is not particularly helpful.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute
BigglesHow does "the court has decided 8-1 that these restrictions are the only ones to apply" fit with their recent reversal of roe v wade? Was that just a rogue court - and if so, how do we deal with that - or does it imply these sorts of things can and do change?
I'm a bit uncomfortable with "the court has a settled precedent" types of arguments, when occasionally they ignore it.
@Biggles It took 50 years of steady progress (or regress) to overturn Roe, which was 7-2.
good enough. Thank you.
@Biggles The point is that the law can change but it changes over somewhat predictable channels.
Martijn Vos@Popehat @Biggles In the case of Roe v Wade, I think it was overturned mostly because of a strong political push to do so. The political party that appointed most of those judges had as an explicit campaign point that they wanted it overturned.
So if one party wants to ban a specific kind of speech and manages to appoint the necessary judges to do so, I see no reason why it wouldn't happen. Of course the court needs some legal justification, but if it's speech that can be shown to hurt people or lead to crimes, I don't think that's going to be much of an obstacle.
So if one party wants to ban a specific kind of speech and manages to appoint the necessary judges to do so, I see no reason why it wouldn't happen. Of course the court needs some legal justification, but if it's speech that can be shown to hurt people or lead to crimes, I don't think that's going to be much of an obstacle.