Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists. But there is no magic right way to interpret terms like 'free speech' or 'due process' - or potato chip.
Worrying that banning flag desecration would inhibit free speech reveals a misunderstanding of the flag's fundamental nature.
I will continue to speak out against the views of both Limbaugh and Hannity when I feel it's warranted, meeting their free speech with my own. But I will never forget that, without them, I'd have a much smaller platform on which to do it.
If I, as a liberal, didn't speak out against those who would squelch the free speech of conservatives, I wouldn't deserve to call myself a liberal.
Voluntary public funding of elections solves the free speech 'problem' with more speech instead of more regulation: by giving qualified candidates who show broad-based constituent support enough matching public funds to mount a credible campaign.
Protecting free speech is not only a matter of principle, it is also pragmatic.
The right to free speech is critical to our democracy.
Free speech is one of the founding principles of our republic.
In terms of political contributions, the free speech rights of corporations I don't think deserve the same protections as the free speech rights of real living, breathing, voting humans.
There are certain things you must not say in spite of the fact that supposedly democracy means free speech. No. You are not allowed free speech. If you speak freely, you are then deemed as I was, to be a subversive.
