In anticipation of major court cases that could cut against the Obama Administration, the NYT has been targeting Chief Justice John Roberts and other right leaning members. However, its editorial in defense of First Amendment freedoms rightly credits the Chief Justice checking congressional excesses and deserves special praise…
Just a few days after a running a front page piece that essentially fixed a bull’s-eye around Chief Justice John Roberts and other more conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, The New York Times has followed up with an editorial about first amendment jurisprudence that deserves praise and recognition. At issue, is a high court ruling against a congressional law that bans depictions of animal cruelty.
Although the House has introduced a modified version of the legislation, the editorial argues that federal lawmakers have not yet grasped the constitutional points Roberts has made. As repulsive as the images are, it is not permissible for congress to create a new list of First Amendment exceptions.
“Justice Roberts said the court cannot create a new exception to free speech by simply balancing the value of the speech against its harm to society,” the editorial points out. “The First Amendment `reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs,’ Roberts wrote. `Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.’ Almost no one would say depictions of animals being crushed or mutilated are worthwhile. The concept is so repulsive that animal rights advocates persuaded a very busy House to pass a new bill outlawing them.”
Animal cruelty does not fit the strict the strict definition of obscenity as it applies to U.S., the editorial explains. “A better analogy would have been to child pornography, in which the act of taking pictures of children is itself illegal,” the Times says. “But Justice Roberts said animal cruelty is not in that category either. The First Amendment is a remarkably fragile institution that does not need more exceptions carved from its meaning.”
Freedom is sometimes a hard item to live with and accept. American citizens from across the political spectrum and from a variety of different religious faiths must sometimes absorb material that offends their sense of decency. The NYT is spot on here with an editorial that strikes all the right notes
Popularity: 1% [?]
