tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705190583378659608.post4032534378808899732..comments2023-11-13T03:52:13.643-05:00Comments on Pragmatism Refreshed: Free Speech for the RatChristopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17755575167245729981noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705190583378659608.post-56287124121948025562007-09-17T10:50:00.000-04:002007-09-17T10:50:00.000-04:00As a free-speech lawyer, I'd like to make two pick...As a free-speech lawyer, I'd like to make two picky points. First, although you are right that the exception for grand openings is "fishy" (it is unconstitutional content-based discrimination), even a total (content-neutral) ban on banners, streamers, and inflatable signs would be unconstitutional, except in the unlikely event that the town could persuade a court that all banners, streamers, and inflatable signs constitute a hazard. <BR/><BR/>Second, one cannot abuse a right; one either has a right or does not have it. Thus, if one publishes, for example, a libelous statement, then one does not "abuse" his right to free speech; rather, the right to free speech does not include the right to publish libelous statements. But I don't understand what you mean by "the right and responsibility for its abuse are two statements of the same fact, not two distinct facts." Perhaps you are saying the same thing that I am.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10646656656732971583noreply@blogger.com