In contrast with the 2008 Connecticut case, Sotomayor dissented from a 2002 decision that allowed a New York City Police Department employee to be fired from his desk job for mailing racist and bigoted political material to charitable groups that had solicited him for donations (Pappas v. Giuliani). She agreed that the employee's speech was "patently offensive," but reminded the other judges that the First Amendment protects even speech that the government "does not like." Thus did this minority-group member admirably go against the grain and properly protect even racist speech.

So where exactly does Sotomayor stand on the multifaceted issues of free speech? These are the kinds of questions one hopes will be explored in the Senate's confirmation process. After all, freedom of expression is a prerequisite for citizens to secure all other rights from government intrusion. In the Bill of Rights, it is no accident that free speech is the subject of the First Amendment. "Strict constructionism" is a meaningless and utterly subjective concept — free speech is not.

< prev  1  |  2  | 
Related: Benign neglect?, The 13th Annual Muzzle Awards, Review: Let Freedom Sing! Music of the Civil Rights Movement, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama, Barack Obama, freedom of speech,  More more >
| More


Most Popular
ARTICLES BY HARVEY SILVERGLATE
Share this entry with Delicious

 See all articles by: HARVEY SILVERGLATE