by Matt Barr

One other thing

Judge Bataillon's opinion striking down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban cites Hill v. Colorado in support of this proposition:

Thus, the right to free speech includes the right to attempt to persuade others to change their views, and it may not be curtailed simply because the speaker's message may be offensive to his audience.

Of all the preposterous, Orwellian readings of Hill. The case upheld Colorado's ban on speech within eight feet of a person entering an abortion clinic if the speech amounted to unconsented-to protest, education or counselling (not any other speech -- that is, the regulation was entirely content-based). The court's syllabus itself says the statute was proper because, among other reasons, it dealt "not with restricting a speaker's right to address a willing audience, but with protecting listeners from unwanted communication." Persuading listeners to change their views is precisely what the Colorado law Hill upheld prohibits.

In a hyperdetailed way, Hill may say speech may not "be curtailed simply because the speaker's message may be offensive to his audience," but this is sort of like citing Roe v. Wade as precedent for the argument that there are important state interests in regulating abortion. Yes, it says that, but is that what it stands for?

Browse books from Amazon.com:
law constitution liberty