You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Academic Disengagement | Main | The 'Other' Students » January 10, 2006Annoying email follow-upProf. Orin Kerr gives a surprisingly unpersuasive defense of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act" mentioned below. He argues that although the law is extremely broad, the Supreme Court has already protected most annoying speech and prosecutors know to only prosecute cases not protected by the First Amendment. This assurance rings hollow. To begin with, each branch of the government has an obligation, under oath, to uphold and not violate the Constitution. If Congress believed this overly broad law was partially unconstitutional, they have failed their duty to the document. A second concern is that the bounds of constitutionality are constantly in flux. In United States v. Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under a virtually similar law that applies to phone calls. The Supreme Court ultimately protected this particular speech, but how can we be assured that this decision will stand the test of time? Finally, even if the Popa decision stands, it only protects us from conviction, not from prosecution. If a prosecutor wanted to take this law and enforce it to the fullest amount possible, one would still have to suffer through litigation expenses in defending himself. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at January 10, 2006 07:00 AM CommentsYour last paragraph nails the big problem with those hollow assurances about how people can't be convicted on violating this law or some others as vague and overarching. Of course you can be convicted. It just might not stand up to appeal. But by the time you've gone through all of that will you still be employed? Will you wind up filing for bankruptcy after the legal bills roll in? What will the stress do to your physical health? You don't have to have it stand up to scrutiny to have prosecution destroy your life. Posted by: Jim S at January 10, 2006 11:10 PM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|