“Free speech absolutism is at best a theology–indeed, a theology in which no one really believes,” writes U. of C. law professor Cass R. Sunstein in the New Republic (December 6). “Often regulation of speech is perfectly acceptable; consider again the laws governing perjury, attempted bribery, false commercial speech, unlicensed medical and legal advice, criminal solicitation, access of speakers to private property and much more. But the failure of free speech absolutism does not mean that there is no such thing as free speech….Instead we need to develop principles by which we may run a good system of free expression….[In the case of hate speech] we should probably draw a distinction between speech codes that intrude on the exchange of ideas and speech codes that are limited to the regulation of simple epithets. The latter are far less objectionable than the former.”
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Who will protect us from our safety devices? James Flammang’s north-side-based Tirekicking Today newsletter (December) notes that the U.S. Department of Transportation has warned parents to put infants’ rear-facing car seats in the back seats of cars that have passenger-side air bags in front. In front, the baby seat would be too close: the inflated air bag might “strike the seat with a force powerful enough to seriously injure an infant.” And we all know how much babies love riding around unable to see anyone else.
Art accompanying story in printed newspaper (not available in this archive): illustration/Carl Kock.
