reading "God bless Saddam" (say) is free speech, then surely so is suggesting that carrying that sign is treasonous.

Of course, there may be some who believe the Sun, if it wants to be taken seriously, should conduct itself more seriously than a random street protester. (One might also say this of the protester.)

Posted by: Angie Schultz at February 14, 2003 07:37 AM

"He was saying that if carrying a sign reading "God bless Saddam" (say) is free speech, then surely so is suggesting that carrying that sign is treasonous."

Of course it's free speech. It's simply idiotic. Did I miss an Amendment saying that free speech couldn't be as idiotic as Taranto's?

And, strangely, yes, if the Sun wants to be read, let alone respected, it might try not being idiotic.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 14, 2003 12:26 PM

Angie's got it. Also, Taranto was saying that critics (even Volokh) misread the Sun's editorial as advocating jailing the protesters when in fact it fudged quite a bit on that score while being provocative. Compare this to the actual arrests of abortion protesters who are uniquely subject to special laws preventing them from standing on public streets within so many yards of clinics.

Posted by: Lloyd at February 14, 2003 01:08 PM

I made an effort to untangle Taranto's mess of an argument here:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/000832.shtml#000832

Posted by: Jesse Walker at February 14, 2003 01:34 PM

Right wing sanctioning of censorship. What's the news here?

Posted by: Oliver at February 15, 2003 05:32 AM

Ascribing the beliefs of some to an entire side of the political aisle... where is the news there?

Posted by: Henry Hanks at February 18, 2003 06:57 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






/body> e { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body> ookie("mtcmthome"); if (getCookie("mtcmtauth")) { document.comments_form.bakecookie[0].checked = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body>