Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!info-law
From: ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (Bud)
Newsgroups: mod.legal
Subject: Freedom of Expression
Message-ID: <8512240041.AA26012@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 23-Dec-85 08:34:02 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8512240041.AA26012
Posted: Mon Dec 23 08:34:02 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 23:09:52 EST
Sender: phr@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 41
Approved: info-law@sri-csl.arpa

Dear John,  (I've always wanted to do that)

If I may revive a somewhat overdicussed topic, I would like to bring up
a few points about freedom of expression.

First, although I cannot cite the case, (I'll look it up if you have a
gr8 interest)  there was a recent case where a policeman's "right" to
wear his hair longer than regulation was held not to be included in the
constitition's broad "expression" freedom.  Regarding your "political
nudity" example, keep in mind the purpose of the freedoms we are talking
about.  At the time of the drafting of the constitution, the Bill of
Rights was not deemed necessary.  It was only after the states refused
to ratify the document without certain protective limitations on the
powers of government that The B of R was added.

Now, a political rally is rather a touchy subject and the Supreme Ct.
will not touch it with a ten foot certiorari if they can help it.  On
the other hand, they are adroit at finding ways to "de-politicize" an
issue they want to hear.  (cites missing, do you want them?)  So let's
acknowledge that "political nudity" is far removed from nude beaches.

Again, historically, the purpose of the freedom of expression was to
insure that it would never be considered seditious in our fair young
nation to voice an opinion, whether by voting, campaigning, debate or
print (newspapers, handbills, TV, radio...)  the concerns a people
from time to time have about their government.  It did not want to
grant an absolute privilege to conduct oneself in any manner that may
come to mind, in the name of expression.  To the contrary, the courts
have been more willing to cast penumbras upon the privilege rather
than allow it to become universal.  (Gertz, Butz, Sullivan, and Dun
and Bradstreet line of cases.)

So, I think you would do better not to view the freedom as what it
was designed to permit, but rather as what it was designed to pro-
hibit.  It is not a license to do whatever you feel, it is a way
to stop the government from eroding our political and ideological
freedom.

In my opinion....
Dave Massey (bud)