Welcoming Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill will be at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater to give a talk today.
Even though Whitewater is just a hop, skip and jump away from Madison, my local media is barely covering the event. However, the ever-expanding Wisconsin blogosphere is all over the story, the Badger Blog Alliance will be reporting from the event, while blog-friendly columnist and radioman Charlie Sykes will also be on the scene. And, I'm sure more Wisconsin blogs will chime in with their post-speech reactions.
Speaking of speech, there's a particularly funny juxtaposition of stories in the news here this morning. On one hand, Churchill's appearance in Whitewater is framed this way:
Meanwhile, Mattmiller says the campus controversy continues with College Democrats scheduled to step out in support of free speech as College Republicans protest the Colorado History professor's comments comparing victims of 9/11 to Nazis.Former Marine and current student David Hamilton says he doesn't want anything to do with Churchill, but he does defend his right to speak.
"That's the beautiful thing about America, you know, that's why I was glad that I volunteered my service in the military because everyone does have the right to speak what they want."
However, elsewhere in Madison, an alderman is trying to ban moving advertisements. I heard this story on the news last night and almost fell off the treadmill. While this article talks about how the advertisments are a distraction, in the interview I heard, the alderman was basically making the proposal because he thinks the advertisements are an eyesore.
I support Ward Churchill's 1st Amendment rights. I also support the 1st Amendment rights of the people who don't like what he says. Supporters and detractors of Churchill will wax poetic about how this demonstrates the beauty of free speech. I don't disagree with them. I just wonder how some of the same people can turn around and be so willing to restrict speech because it's an "eyesore" or because it's "hate speech" or because it's in the form of a political donation or advertisement.
Posted by at March 1, 2005 08:58 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/728
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
commercial speech (e.g. advertisements) isn't entitled to full first amendment protection. if the speech is truthful and is not advertising an illegal good or service the court applies a somewhat intermediate level of scrutiny when assessing whether a particular restriction is reasonable (central hudson), requiring that 1 the government restriction advance an important govt interest and 2 that the restriction be no more restrictive than necessary. interestingly, the law in this area is in flux with a somewhat unlikely group of justices (rehnquist, breyer, stevens, ginsberg) of the opinion that this sort of 1A analysis leads to "lochnerism." (long story)
also, the court hasnt yet developed an "asshatted speech" doctrine, and it think it's long overtime that they did. |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
Professor Stoolpigeon |







