Academic thinks you have too much liberty, part deux

Caught a story at KURU Lounge, a prominent American legal scholar argues in favor of restricting first Amendment rights in the New York Times article about the Steyn/Maclean's trial today. Between that article and this one from Canada the other day, I find myself asking:  What is it about academics that make them so hellbent on seeking authoritarian rule?  It almost never turns out well for them, yet they keep chasing it.

Some legal scholars think that regulatory speech codes in the fashion of ones in Europe and Canada are acceptable restrictions of American liberty, says one legal scholar,

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Amazing how eager some people are to give and take our liberties away, and a legal scholar no less.  One question, why doesn't this tool move to Europe or Canada where they're happy to restrict all the liberties he could ever want them to restrict?  He'd be so much happier there, and we'd be so much happier here. Maybe that we Americans are happy in our liberty is what makes him unhappy.

Speaking of others seeking to restrict our liberties...

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 07:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.