Tweet
Now, we all know that Betsy Woodruff, the author of the above article, hates women, Jews, Blacks, Corsicans and long walks on the beach with your treasured spouse. However, that being said, what do we make of an Administration that seeks to appoint lawyers opposed to free speech and the rule of law as we know it to the Supreme Court?
This is where Koh comes in. One of the reasons many conservatives opposed his confirmation was that he wrote a paper implying that the U.S. ought to take the same stance toward free speech as many European countries do, fining and imprisoning those who say things that are offensive to specific religious or ethnic groups. In a 2003 Stanford Law Review article called “On American Exceptionalism,” he argued:
Admittedly, in a globalizing world, our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet. In my view, however, our Supreme Court can moderate these conflicts by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation.
He also wrote, “As American lawyers, scholars and activists, we should make better use of transnational legal process to press our own government to avoid the most negative and damaging features of American exceptionalism.”
Admittedly, in a globalizing world, our exceptional free speech tradition can cause problems abroad, as, for example, may occur when hate speech is disseminated over the Internet. In my view, however, our Supreme Court can moderate these conflicts by applying more consistently the transnationalist approach to judicial interpretation.
He also wrote, “As American lawyers, scholars and activists, we should make better use of transnational legal process to press our own government to avoid the most negative and damaging features of American exceptionalism.”
This is an administration that supported the appointment of a man to the SC who opposes free speech as we know it. If bans on offensive free speech occurred he would happily throw out the law to rule in their favour. In short, opposing free speech as it is traditionally understood for a cockamamie European conception of same is Administration policy.
Comment