Discuss and Debate Amongst Yourselves

Interesting, interesting post at the Volokh Conspiracy on the suppression of the speech of the radical right.

Obviously, this is a very controversial, very interesting subject for debate, so I'll just include a few thoughts of my own. First, it's sort of scary how the sedition argument actually echoes some extreme right wing rhetoric. Let me just say simply that this is why we don't define treason broadly. We don't want to start executing nutty anti-war protesters and nutty religious extremists.

Secondly, is it really true that we have no right to preach the extermination of others, as Chris Hedges suggests? If I were to say that all child rapists should get the death penalty am I really exceeding the bounds of what I should be able to say. Of course, I'm using an extreme example to make a slippery-slope point, but if Hedges wants to lay down a moral principle then everything that moral principle entails should be considered.

The real disconnect here is in regards to the degree of the rhetoric. I don't think there are any radical right preachers who make speeches telling their followers to go out and kill homosexuals. This is the sort of speech that falls close to shouting fire in a crowded theater- it is direct incitement of violence. Arguing that our laws should be changed and certain people should be put to death is the other side of the spectrum- this is pure political speech.

It's easy to lay out a general principal that inciting violence is illegal- it's much harder to lay out a general principle that certain types of speech are beyond the pale, most simply because of the problem of deciding who makes the moral judgments about what speech is okay and what speech is not.