I don't know why NPN in its post today tries to make Michael Pill's history as a lawyer relevant. When in the business of representing clients in adversarial proceedings, lawyers are civil mercenaries; over the course of an entire career, it’s not uncommon for them to be found representing different clients with inconsistent points of view.
Our freedom of speech may not be absolute, as nothing is, but because freedom of speech is a constitutional right, when we put it into the scale of conflicting rights and interests, it ought to be given significantly more weight than non-constitutional rights and interests.
NPN needs to reconcile itself to the truth of its position which in effect means our right to free speech should not be a constitutional right, and honestly admit that it would have us repeal the first amendment. It would be a compassionate step on their part; NPN's denial of the truth hurts us all, including themselves, very deeply.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment