High Court Speech Cases in Wartime

Friday, December 03, 2010

Transcript

Throughout American history, wartime protests (and government suppression of them) have led to blockbuster Supreme Court free speech cases. Although not always friendly to free speech advocates, these decisions have ignited national conversations about what speech the government can and cannot outlaw during wartime. But after examining our current era, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick observed a surprising dearth of protest cases heard by the Supreme Court.

Comments [3]

Just a Thought

It is worth remembering that "angry attacking speech" and "wartime protest speech" are often the same thing.

Dec. 04 2010 12:36 PM
KadeKo

I remember the environment in which the Bush admin "respected the widespread and rabid speech used against them" differently than you. And I don't remember that admin being able to tell the difference between themselves and the country.

If by "respect" you mean them feeding crap to Judith Miller, outing a CIA covert agent for partisan purposes, hiring Jeff Gannon, Armstrong Williams, and "Karen Ryan" because Fox News wasn't doing their bidding enough, saying "Watch what you do, watch what you say", "You're with us or against us", having Colin Powell lie about yellowcake, or aluminum refining tubes (or both), and "the next smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud", then, yeah, I'm right there with you.

Dec. 04 2010 11:49 AM
Just a Thought

I realize it may be difficult to admit but maybe the reason there has been no free speech challenges during the Bush Administration is because they successfully safe guarded the nation after 9/11 AND respected the wide spread and rabid speech used against them and the war effort.
However the recent Supreme Court case regarding "material support" bizarrely described by the guest as "simple things" like giving "humanitarian aid" to a terrorist group like "alternative dispute resolution" and trying to "tell them how not to be terrorist group" sounds profoundly stupid and ridiculous. It would be laughable if it were not so dangerous . So much so that apparently even our current bugling Justice Department has pursued it thanks to the Patriot Act. It being one of the few things inherited from Bush that Obama doesn't complain about too much. Thanks

Dec. 03 2010 11:41 PM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.