Sandy, I agree. I should have made my point more clearly, which is that many people (like the poster to whom I was responding) seem ready to abandon freedom of speech, and other civil liberties, at the thought of "even one death," while even thousands of deaths don't cause them to consider prohibiting recreational drinking, or 70-mph speed limits, or a host of other social behaviors that sometimes cause deaths.
Putting the Constitution entirely aside, doesn't free speech have as much social value as a roadside tavern? Perhaps we should just think of it as a risky social behavior -- then we could more easily tolerate the deaths that it causes from time to time. ;-) Art Spitzer In a message dated 9/16/10 3:49:55 PM, slevin...@law.utexas.edu writes: > I'll bite: the argument against prohibition is prudential, ie, the social > costs are too high (as with drugs and, argably, guns), not because there > is a constititional right to drink or, even after Heller, possess a habdgun > outside one's home. > > Sandy >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
