In a message dated 6/9/01 11:53:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ravage@einstein.ssz.com writes:
> In a message dated 6/9/01 11:35:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ravage@einstein.ssz.com writes:
>
>
> > Bullshit, the 1st makes no such distinction. With respect to libel, or
any
> > other form of speech it only says it isn't a federal issue. Note that no
> >
>
> Yeah, but then you've got the 14th, which has been used to apply the Bill
of
> Rights to the states (due process clause), so that means that no gov. can
> restrict free speech. As for libel, its damn hard to make stick- public
> figures have a hight standard, which includes proving actual malice. Fun
> times.
But the 14'th only speaks of 'priviliges and immunities' it never(!) uses
the term 'right' and a right is clearly not a privilige or immunity (read
the first two para's of the DoI for explanation of 'right').
If anything the 14'th would prevent states from making any(!) laws
respecting speech, even if we accept rights as priviliges or immunities
Right, reading it literally. But the supreme court has interpreted the "due
process" clause to include rights granted under the bill of rights (using the
incorperation doctrine). I know it isn't in the 14th itself, but the way the
court has interpreted it has given it this meaning. Look at New York v.
Griswold (i think) for a good example of this. The court applied unreasonable
search and siezure to a state using the 14th. The same goes for free speech.
Ender