Heres Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield, writing at The Atlanticabout the racist-chant scandal at the University of Oklahoma: <\/p>\n
We are told the First Amendment protects the odious because we cannot trust the government to make choices about content on our behalf. That protections of speech will inevitably be overinclusive. But that this is a cost we must bear. If we start punishing speech, advocates argue, then we will slide down the slippery slope to tyranny. <\/p>\n
If that is what the First Amendment means, then we have a problem greater than bigoted frat boys. The problem would be the First Amendment. <\/p>\n
Catos brief inWalker v. Texas Division(the Confederate flag license-plate case) pokes plenty of fun at government censors who would protect us from offensive speech, but this is no laughing matter. <\/p>\n
H\/t Trevor Burrus <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
View original post here:<\/p>\n
Why We Filed a Brief Defending Offensive Speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Heres Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield, writing at The Atlanticabout the racist-chant scandal at the University of Oklahoma: We are told the First Amendment protects the odious because we cannot trust the government to make choices about content on our behalf. That protections of speech will inevitably be overinclusive. Continue reading