From: Greg Burch (gregburch@gregburch.net)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 17:56:31 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy S
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:30 AM
> "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> said:
>
> >
> > Hmmm... looks to me like I was right about the PA and
> > perhaps other laws going completely against the 1st
> > ammendment.
> >
>
> I am sure Mr Burch will set us straight on how this particular case is
> strictly on the up-and-up, with respect to how Sherman's constitutional
> rights were duly respected by the FBI, the police, the prosecutors. et al.
I don't have time for a detailed reply, but will only note the following:
1) I'm not a constitutional practitioner. But I do have opinions informed
by studying constitutional law and practicing as a civil trial lawyer for a
long time.
2) I have serious doubts about the constitutionality of any law that limits
communication in any way. The famous "yelling'fire'" rationale for laws
limiting speech is a strained metaphor at best in cases involving political
speech of any kind, and is probably just flat wrong in most of them.
3) Cases like this may well be examples of police and prosecutors going too
far. I pay (and I hope lots of other people do, too) for groups like the
ACLU and the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org/index.shtml) to work
hard against police and prosecutorial misconduct in cases with
constitutional implications.
GB, THHotA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 18:07:21 MDT