My read was that the EO was just emphasizing that speech that is normally protected isn't protected when, e.g., it's incitement to imminent lawless action.
I'm pretty sleep-deprived today, so I'm probably missing a lot.
Anyway, Turley reminds us of this, from Scalia:
Yes, if I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.
Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn’t just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. And burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea – “I hate the government,” “the government is unjust,” whatever.
No comments:
Post a Comment