If they agreed to the restrictions (no guns, no torches), they should have been allowed to hold the rally - the park is the responsibility of the NPS, but it was the city who blocked the rally by erecting fences around the park. It was too bad because a group of citizens was planning to dump dog waste all over the park - some people had been saving it up for days. The thought of Nazis goose-stepping through dog poop was actually kind of amusing.
Pelosi's misguided call for prior restraint was wrong and can't be defended - there was no evidence that this group intended to anything other than have a peaceful rally.
But keep in mind that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Look at the laws about obscenity and child porn, or the laws about false advertising. Or the laws in some states that prohibit a doctor from counseling a patient about abortion. The FCC regulates the type of speech that can be used over the air during certain hours. When was the last time you saw naked bodies or simulated sex on broadcast TV (not cable, which is not subjected to those rules)? There's a six-second delay on live broadcasts just in case someone accidentally drops an f-bomb - even some cable channels bleep certain words although they don't have to. All of these laws and rules are meant to protect people who might be offended or harmed by these activities. Aren't these all free speech issues?
For something closer to hate speech, which is often intended to promote or incite violence, look at what recently happened in MA, where a young woman was convicted of manslaughter because she continuously urged her boyfriend to commit suicide. Isn't that a free speech issue?
So if you look at all these examples of actual restrictions on freedom of speech, why is it so amazing or upsetting that hate speech might be restricted? |
