Chloe Foster 5:26 PM (6 hours ago) to Gordon We have a dangerous philosophy in the voice of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Bryer says he does not see the right to free speech as a natural and inalienable right of each individual. Rather, he sees the right to free speech to be limited, and present only to the extent that it benefits the collective, or more precisely, governments assessment of what benefits the collective, or even more precisely, whatever federal judicial authorities say benefits the collective. Justice Breyer says that free speech is protected in order to maintain a healthy public debate, not as a natural right. And, according to Justice Breyer, it isnt fair that some have more ability to be heard than others, since if some have the ability to have more speech, others will not be heard. By this reasoning, why wouldnt federal legislation be upheld which limited the speech of the few who control CNN or NBC for example? Arent they to a large degree unfairly controlling the narrative to the determent of others ability to be heard? Same for the few who control Hollywood or major newspapers or for popular talk radio hosts. Be aware, Justice Stephen Breyer is a very dangerous force for the dismantling of our constitutional protections of the natural rights of each individual. More below from George Mason University law professor David Bernstein . . . ------------- washingtonpost/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/
Posted on: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:23:58 +0000