Silly Americans Actually Believe They Have Unfettered Free Speech!!! ROTFLMAO!!

[f. barnes]

Thank God for the 1st amendment.

LOL!  Just like you have the 2nd, and 40,000 firearms laws to go with it.
What a delusional chump.  
Coulter can't stand the taste of her own medicine, nor can the other
rightists.
When Citizen "Tea Baggers" shouted down Democratic politicians t town
hall meetings last summer, Coulter characterized the shout-down as
"American democracy in action..."
You Fox News educated clowns have no idea what the 1st amendment is.

How do I get Fox News? I have enhanced basic cable, but no Fox News.

You dumbasses don't even know what constitutes free speech.   Which
explains your draconian decency laws which see $400,000 fines levied on
programs that swear on TV and radio.
Do you really believe that you have unfettered free speech?
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
    C. Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American
    law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement
    to crime, "fighting words," and sedition.
Exceptions to Freedom of Expression
Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by
the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify
these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or
speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or
traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from
England that was the basis of our American legal system.
Rather than merely reciting the list of established exceptions, it is
important to understand the rationale for making exceptions to free speech
protection under the Constitution. The value of free speech sometimes
clashes with other important values in our culture.
Discussion QuestionsHow should we weigh the relative importance of these
competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism,
sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country?
against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's
traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical
injury to another person?
Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections
include the following: Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words |
Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity
(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of
alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another
person.(1) Our right to freedom of expression is restricted when our
expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) cause harm to the
reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us,
for example, by harming our ability to earn a living (economic harm).
This exception to freedom of expression can be difficult to apply in
practice. Defamation requires an allegation of a fact which is in fact
false. In contrast, the expression of an opinion is not considered
defamation.
Discussion QuestionsImagine an artistic exhibit claiming that certain
named persons, ordinary citizens were child molesters or had a secret Nazi
past or earned extra income as prostitutes. If these are viewed strictly
as factual claims which are false, they would seem to constitute
defamation. But what if the artist said she was expressing a symbolic
commentary or creating a metaphor about the secret lives of ordinary
people, not making an allegation of fact? How should we draw the line in
an artistic work between a factual statement and a symbolic or
metaphorical opinion?
Discussion QuestionsSome years ago, on an eastern college campus, flyers
were distributed with the names of male students randomly drawn from the
student directory, with the label that they were potential rapists.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is guerrilla theater art. Were
these flyers statements? Were they false statements? Were the reputations
of the male students harmed? Should these expressions be protected by the
First Amendment if the expressions were made by artists? Should we allow
such statements, even if they are defamatory, if they are made by artists?
How then should we decide who counts as an artist for this exception to
the prohibition on defamation?
In 1990, Donald E. Wildmon, Executive Director of the American Family
Association, published a pamphlet which include excerpts from the work of
artist David Wojnarowicz in an exhibit, "Tongues of Flame." The artist
sued Wildmon and the AFA for (among other things) defamation. Although the
court agreed that "By presenting what are, standing alone, essentially
pornographic images as plaintiff's works of art, without noting that the
images are merely details from larger composite works, the pamphlet is
libelous per se." However, as Wojnarowicz was considered a "public
figure," he also had to show that Wildmon acted with reckless disregard
for the truth. The court held that this higher standard had not been met.
(For the text of this court decision, see Wojnarowicz v. American Family
Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]).
Discussion QuestionsDo you agree with Wojnarowicz that presentation of his
work out of context was defamatory? What considerations support the
artist's claims? What arguments can be raised against the artist's claims?
(2) Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by
the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire"
in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which
a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her
speech would really cause harm to others. We can imagine works of art
which might cause real panic among the audience, perhaps a contemporary
version of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, which caused considerable
panic when it first aired on the radio, and in turn was based on H.G.
Wells The War of the Worlds.
Discussion QuestionsImagine that a guerilla theater group staged a fake
emergency which a reasonable person would expect would almost certainly
cause real panic among the audience. This might be a theater production
during which the director plans to yell "fire" and cause a stampede by the
audience to the exit doors. Should this exercise of freedom of expression
by artists be protected by the First Amendment? Or could we argue that the
panic resulted simply because naive audience members were unsophisticated
about how to approach art and that freedom of expression should prevail?
Perhaps (one might argue) they do not know how to assume an "aesthetic
attitude" or appropriately "distance" themselves from a work of art.
(3) Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect
"fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or
tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572
[1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but
rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech.
This exception warrants scrutiny. Note that the harm involved is physical
harm caused by someone else who was provoked by the speaker whose speech
is being suppressed. The fact that someone else flies into a rage and
causes physical harm results in justifying suppression of speech by
another person!
Discussion QuestionsIt is worth considering why this exception has
declined in acceptance. Are we now more skeptical of claims that people
cannot control their actions? Do we demand the exercise of more
responsibility by persons regardless of what inflammatory words they might
hear? Are we more suspicious of claims of causal necessity in such
situations? Note the irony that we are also witnessing an increase in the
so-called "abuse excuse" in which we seem more likely to excuse someone's
behavior because of something someone else did to them. Is this
inconsistent with the decline in the fighting words exception?
(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a
crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Discussion QuestionsIf a budding rap group proposes to perform a work
which includes the exhortation to "kill whitie" or "kill the cops" or
"rape the babe," could that be incitement to a crime? Such records have
been sold by commercial organizations, of course, yet there are no
reported arrests of those artists or record companies for incitement to a
crime. Should such rap lyrics be considered incitement to crime or is the
causal relationship to any actual murders or rapes too tenuous?
Discussion QuestionsA novel criminal defense has arisen, claiming that
such music somehow compelled the defendant to commit the crime. In Austin,
Texas, Ronald Ray Howard, charged with the capital murder of a state
trooper, claimed in his defense that ". . . he learned to hate police
officers from years of listening to rap music with violent anti-police
themes. . . . "(3) Is this an acceptable defense? Why or why not? (The
jury convicted him, reaching a verdict in 35 minutes.)
Discussion QuestionsThe recent attention to violence on television is
largely a debate over whether such televised violence is a cause of actual
violence, such that persons who exhibit violent shows should be held
responsible. If society wants to discourage violence on television, is it
because such depicted violence is clearly a cause of actual violence? Are
there other reasons why society might still feel justified in restricting
this depiction?
Discussion QuestionsIt is easy to imagine highly unpalatable projects
which arguably could be considered an incitement to crime. What if a
fundamentalist religious extremist group publishes a guidebook in this
country on how to commit terrorism in the United States, with detailed
instructions on making bombs, maps showing the homes and offices of
government officials, and so forth. Instructions alone would not seem to
constitute incitement, so assume that the book will also include a ...
read more »

[SaPeIsMa]

Thank God for the 1st amendment.

LOL! Just like you have the 2nd, and 40,000 firearms laws to go with it.

1) the number is closer to 20,000.
2) Those laws were passed by delusional chumps, who believed:
a) that passing laws will stop criminals from committing crimes
b) if a) doesn't work, then passing more laws will work
3) And those laws are slowly by surely being declared null and void

What a delusional chump.

Have you looked in a mirror recently ?
You have our condolences

Coulter can't stand the taste of her own medicine, nor can the other
rightists.

What medicine is that
When did Coulter EVER advocate silencing her opposition
Censirship has ALWAYS been a tool of the left.
They are even willing to kill people to silence their oppositino
That's why the left managed to kill off over 140,000,000 in a single century
That's why lefty thugs show up and disrupt speaking events of people like
Coulter

When Citizen "Tea Baggers" shouted down Democratic politicians t town
hall meetings last summer, Coulter characterized the shout-down as
"American democracy in action..."

Did they now ?
Or is this more leftist lies to justify your bad behavior

You Fox News educated clowns have no idea what the 1st amendment is.

LOL
They probably have a far better idea than dunderhead nym-changing trolls
like you

You dumbasses don't even know what constitutes free speech. Which
explains your draconian decency laws which see $400,000 fines levied on
programs that swear on TV and radio.
Do you really believe that you have unfettered free speech?
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
C. Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American
law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement
to crime, "fighting words," and sedition.
Exceptions to Freedom of Expression
Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by
the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify
these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or
speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or
traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from
England that was the basis of our American legal system.
Rather than merely reciting the list of established exceptions, it is
important to understand the rationale for making exceptions to free speech
protection under the Constitution. The value of free speech sometimes
clashes with other important values in our culture.
Discussion QuestionsHow should we weigh the relative importance of these
competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism,
sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country?
against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's
traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical
injury to another person?
Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections
include the following: Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words |
Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity
(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of
alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another
person.(1) Our right to freedom of expression is restricted when our
expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) cause harm to the
reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us,
for example, by harming our ability to earn a living (economic harm).
This exception to freedom of expression can be difficult to apply in
practice. Defamation requires an allegation of a fact which is in fact
false. In contrast, the expression of an opinion is not considered
defamation.
Discussion QuestionsImagine an artistic exhibit claiming that certain
named persons, ordinary citizens were child molesters or had a secret Nazi
past or earned extra income as prostitutes. If these are viewed strictly
as factual claims which are false, they would seem to constitute
defamation. But what if the artist said she was expressing a symbolic
commentary or creating a metaphor about the secret lives of ordinary
people, not making an allegation of fact? How should we draw the line in
an artistic work between a factual statement and a symbolic or
metaphorical opinion?
Discussion QuestionsSome years ago, on an eastern college campus, flyers
were distributed with the names of male students randomly drawn from the
student directory, with the label that they were potential rapists.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is guerrilla theater art. Were
these flyers statements? Were they false statements? Were the reputations
of the male students harmed? Should these expressions be protected by the
First Amendment if the expressions were made by artists? Should we allow
such statements, even if they are defamatory, if they are made by artists?
How then should we decide who counts as an artist for this exception to
the prohibition on defamation?
In 1990, Donald E. Wildmon, Executive Director of the American Family
Association, published a pamphlet which include excerpts from the work of
artist David Wojnarowicz in an exhibit, "Tongues of Flame." The artist
sued Wildmon and the AFA for (among other things) defamation. Although the
court agreed that "By presenting what are, standing alone, essentially
pornographic images as plaintiff's works of art, without noting that the
images are merely details from larger composite works, the pamphlet is
libelous per se." However, as Wojnarowicz was considered a "public
figure," he also had to show that Wildmon acted with reckless disregard
for the truth. The court held that this higher standard had not been met.
(For the text of this court decision, see Wojnarowicz v. American Family
Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]).
Discussion QuestionsDo you agree with Wojnarowicz that presentation of his
work out of context was defamatory? What considerations support the
artist's claims? What arguments can be raised against the artist's claims?
(2) Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by
the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire"
in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which
a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her
speech would really cause harm to others. We can imagine works of art
which might cause real panic among the audience, perhaps a contemporary
version of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, which caused considerable
panic when it first aired on the radio, and in turn was based on H.G.
Wells The War of the Worlds.
Discussion QuestionsImagine that a guerilla theater group staged a fake
emergency which a reasonable person would expect would almost certainly
cause real panic among the audience. This might be a theater production
during which the director plans to yell "fire" and cause a stampede by the
audience to the exit doors. Should this exercise of freedom of expression
by artists be protected by the First Amendment? Or could we argue that the
panic resulted simply because naive audience members were unsophisticated
about how to approach art and that freedom of expression should prevail?
Perhaps (one might argue) they do not know how to assume an "aesthetic
attitude" or appropriately "distance" themselves from a work of art.
(3) Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect
"fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or
tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572
[1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but
rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech.
This exception warrants scrutiny. Note that the harm involved is physical
harm caused by someone else who was provoked by the speaker whose speech
is being suppressed. The fact that someone else flies into a rage and
causes physical harm results in justifying suppression of speech by
another person!
Discussion QuestionsIt is worth considering why this exception has
declined in acceptance. Are we now more skeptical of claims that people
cannot control their actions? Do we demand the exercise of more
responsibility by persons regardless of what inflammatory words they might
hear? Are we more suspicious of claims of causal necessity in such
situations? Note the irony that we are also witnessing an increase in the
so-called "abuse excuse" in which we seem more likely to excuse someone's
behavior because of something someone else did to them. Is this
inconsistent with the decline in the fighting words exception?
(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a
crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Discussion QuestionsIf a budding rap group proposes to perform a work
which includes the exhortation to "kill whitie" or "kill the cops" or
"rape the babe," could that be incitement to a crime? Such records have
been sold by commercial organizations, of course, yet there are no
reported arrests of those artists or record companies for incitement to a
crime. Should such rap lyrics be considered incitement to crime or is the
causal relationship to any actual murders or rapes too tenuous?
Discussion QuestionsA novel criminal defense has arisen, claiming that
such music somehow compelled the defendant to commit the crime. In Austin,
Texas, Ronald Ray Howard, charged with the capital murder of a state
trooper, claimed in his defense that ". . . he learned to hate police
officers from years of listening to rap music with violent anti-police
themes. . . . "(3) Is this an acceptable defense? Why or why not? (The
jury convicted him, reaching a verdict in 35 minutes.)
Discussion QuestionsThe recent attention to violence on television is
largely a debate over whether such televised violence is a cause of actual
violence, such that persons who exhibit violent shows should be held
responsible. If society wants to discourage violence on television, is it
because such depicted violence is clearly a cause of actual violence? Are
there other reasons why society might still feel justified in restricting
this depiction?
Discussion QuestionsIt is easy to imagine highly unpalatable projects
which arguably could be considered an incitement to crime. What if a
fundamentalist religious extremist group publishes a guidebook in this
country on how to commit terrorism in the United States, with detailed
instructions on making bombs, maps showing the homes and offices of
government officials, and so forth. Instructions alone would not seem to
constitute incitement, so assume that the book will also include a
statement from the religion's most revered leader urging that the
guaranteed path to eternal bliss is following the instructions in the
book. Given the presumed audience, might this be incitement to crime?
(5) Sedition: Although not without controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has
upheld statutes which prohibit the advocacy of unlawful conduct against
the government or the violent overthrow of the government. As with
prohibitions discussed earlier, the expressions in question are assessed
according to the circumstances. Academic discussion of the theories of,
say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test,
especially in this post-Soviet era. The theoretical consideration and even
endorsement of these views could not remotely be considered to be
reasonable expectations of the actual overthrow of the government. But it
is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla
theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States
(the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of
success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of
success by contemporary Marxists.
Discussion QuestionsIf the discussion of Marx should not be prohibited as
sedition, should we be consistent and allow discussion by the religious
extremist? Are there any grounds upon which we could distinguish these
situations?
(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S.
Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole,
lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Although much debated, this standard remains the law of the land, and
elements of this language have been included in both the authorizing
legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts (20 U.S.C. 951 et
seq.) and the Communications Decency Act (4) prohibiting "obscenity" and
"indecency" on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act was struck
down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1997. The NEA
legislation was been struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts but
was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. (NEA v. Finley, No. 97-371,
1998)
Discussion QuestionsOne controversy over this exception to free speech is
whether obscenity causes real harm sufficient to justify suppression of
free speech. Does viewing obscenity make it more likely that a man will
later commit rape, or other acts of violence against women, obviously real
harm to another person? Does reading about war make it more likely that
someone will start a war? Even if there is some evidence of such causal
relationships, however tenuous or strong, is it sufficient to justify this
exception to free speech? Alternatively, could the prohibition on
obscenity be a reflection of moral values and societal standards which
should more properly be handled in the private sector through moral
education, not government censorship?
Discussion QuestionsAnother problem area is determining what counts as
"obscenity". In Miller, the court tried to fashion a standard which could
be adapted to different communities, so that what counts as obscenity in
rural Mississippi might not count as obscenity in Atlanta or New York
City. Is this fair? Do the people in those areas themselves agree on
community standards? What is the "community" for art that is displayed
on-line on the Internet?
Discussion QuestionsAnother controversy in the Miller standard is the
exception for "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
Who decides what counts as "serious"? If some people consider Penthouse or
the National Enquirer to be serious literature, is it elitist to deny them
this exception from censorship as "obscenity"? Given the controversies in
contemporary art (found objects, performance art, and so forth), what
counts as artistic value? Has the Court solved the problem of defining
"obscenity" or only made it more complicated?
In reviewing these classic exceptions to free speech, it does seem that
real harm can be caused by at least some of these instances of speech.
Following J.S. Mill, we could limit our restrictions to real harm --
physical or economic harm, not psychic or hypothetical harm. If real harm
is present, then we should next address the causal relationship necessary
to hold someone responsible for the harm caused by the expression. This is
not easy, of course, but we do have models for determining when a causal
relationship is sufficiently close ("proximate") to hold someone
responsible. We also have experience in determining whether to hold people
responsible based on whether a reasonable person knew or should have known
the consequences of their actions.
In addition to these established exceptions to freedom of expression,
there are examples of speech which would not cause real harm, in Mill's
sense, but which some believe justify suppression of speech: Offense |
Establishment of Religion
(7) Offense: Although rejected by American courts, some theorists argue
that speech which is merely offensive to others should be another
exception to the First Amendment.(5) In a court challenge to an NEA-funded
exhibit, David Wojnarowicz: Tongues of Flame, David Fordyce and Yvonne
Knickerbocker claimed that the exhibit caused them to "[suffer] a
spiritual injury and that the exhibition caused offense to their religious
sensibilities." (Fordyce v. Frohnmayer, 763 F.Supp. 654, 656 [D.D.C.
1991]) The court rejected the claim, especially as "plaintiffs do not even
allege that they have either seen the exhibition or studied the catalogue
. . . [and thus] have failed to show that they have endured any special
burdens that justify their standing to sue as citizens." Id. But the court
left open the possibility that the plaintiffs might have a claim if "they
had to confront the exhibition daily, . . . the exhibition was visible in
the course of their normal routine, or . . . their usual driving or
walking routes took them through or past the exhibition." Id.
Discussion QuestionsThe complexities of this issue are highlighted when
other examples are considered. What if an exhibit celebrated the practice
of some religions of female genitalia mutilation? Should such exhibits be
accorded the full protection of the First Amendment despite the horror
which most feel about such "religious" practices? Are there some
expressions which are so extremely offensive to many in the population
that they should be banned by the government, even though they cause no
real harm to anyway? By what criteria should this be decided?
(8) Establishment of Religion: Some speech is restricted because it
constitutes the establishment of religion, which is itself prohibited by
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.") Prayer led by a principal in a
public school would violate the establishment clause. Thus, a school
policy prohibiting the principal from leading such prayers would not
violate the right of free speech. This is controversial to some, who
believe that banning prayer in the public schools limits an equally
important right, freedom of religion. This tension illustrates the
not-uncommon challenge of balancing competing and perhaps even
irreconcilable values in the Constitution.
In challenging the Wojnarowicz exhibit, the plaintiffs (above) argued that
the exhibit was critical of their Christian beliefs and thus violated the
establishment clause. The plaintiffs said that they
view the public display of the exhibition as an affront to their
liberty to practice religion free from governmental entanglement and
politically divisive governmental intrusion into the affairs of
religion. (Id. at 655)
But the court said "that merely asserting spiritual injury under the
establishment clause is insufficient to support standing to sue as a
citizen." (Id. at 656)
Discussion QuestionsOf interest here is the difference between spiritual
injury, physical injury or harm, and economic harm. Why are the latter two
sufficient to suppress speech, but not the former? What criteria seem to
be involved in making such a distinction?
A future plaintiff might be able to show sufficient and direct suffering,
but another consideration would rule out such challenges to NEA grants. To
violate the Establishment clause, "Congress . . . [must have decided] how
the . . . funds were to be spent, and the executive branch, in
administering the statute, was merely carrying out Congress' scheme." (6)
At NEA, in contrast, Congress does not "[participate] in the decision to
grant or deny applications for federal funding, . . . . [nor does] NEA
merely [administer] a congressional directive." (Id.) This means that if
NEA denied a grant based on possible violation of the Establishment
Clause, it might violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment.(7)
Note that this reasoning seems to leave open the possibility of a grant by
NEA to promote appreciation for Creationism.
D. Philosophical Consideration of Freedom of Expression
The English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) articulated what
might be called the "liberal" or (better) the "libertarian" position on
freedom of expression in his 1859 book On Liberty. (8) His test for
appropriate government interference with human liberties is his well-known
. . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not
a sufficient warrant. (9)
This basic principle provides an excellent rule-of-thumb for approaching
issues of freedom of expression. Most of the classic exceptions to freedom
of expression, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, are consistent
with this harm principle. The major exception is the legal prohibition on
obscenity, to which Mill would object on the grounds that it does not
cause real harm.
Mill appeals to several principles in defending his position on freedom of
expression. First, how would we know which opinions to suppress as untrue?
We are not, after all, infallible. Second, many opinions include at least
some truth. Only through vigorous debate of conflicting opinions does the
truth eventually come out. Third, even if the opinions selected by the
government as true were indeed true, people would not necessarily believe
it, but would consider it prejudice. Fourth, the government-approved
opinions would not be understood and appreciated by the public, as the
views would not have been developed "from reason or personal
experience."(10)
Contemporary philosophers following Mill's approach have summarized the
exceptions to freedom of expression established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Joel Feinberg, for example, has considered "how the liberal [i.e., Mill's]
principles that support free expression of opinion generally also define
the limits to what the law can permit to be said." (11) Carl Cohen has
also used this approach in analyzing limits on freedom of expression.(12)
Critics of Mill's approach to freedom of expression generally accept the
harm principle as a justification for suppressing speech, but claim that
additional reasons are sufficient to suppress speech. Patrick Devlin and
Edmund Pincoffs, for example, believe that the government should enforce
morality and thus should legislate morality, suppressing speech to further
that goal. (13) Others criticize Mill's assumption that a successful
democracy depends upon freedom of expression for a healthy debate about
the issues.(14)