Greg London:
> If I say "Men should not be ruled by kings" and the people
> follow my command, that is functional speech. This is exactly
> the kind of Functional Speech that the constitution intended
> to protect.
If I say "the United States Government has no moral right to demand the
loyalty of its citizens, and should be reformed or abolished", that's
constitutionally protected speech.
If I say "I'm going to kill the President" to someone who might take me
seriously, and the Secret Service finds out, I'm in deep doo-doo.
Yes, you can define "functional" in a way that includes both of those
statements, but the relevant legal precedents don't. If you get hauled up
before a Federal judge on the charge of threatening the life of the
President (violating 18 USC 871, punishable by up to five years in prison),
the judge won't care so much about *your* definition.
You may be interested in an essay by Stanley Fish called "There's No Such
Thing As Free Speech and It's a Good Thing, Too". Fish argues that behind
every argument in favor of free speech, there's an assumption that certain
kinds of speech, or certain speakers, should *not* be free -- nobody really
supports complete and unrestricted freedom of expression, because the only
society that could have such freedom is a society where nobody is affected
by what anyone else says.
Fish cites, as an example, Milton's _Aeropagitica_, which is generally
considered one of the earliest philosophical defenses of free expression;
in the middle of this essay, Milton makes an offhand remark that of course
none of this free-expression stuff applies to Catholics.
--
"The big dig might come in handy ... for a few project managers
whom I think would make great landfill." --Elaine Ashton
== seth gordon == [EMAIL PROTECTED] == standard disclaimer ==
== documentation group, kenan systems corp., cambridge, ma ==
