Wall Street Journal: Justice Alito’s First Amendment
By James Taranto
.....Justice Samuel Alito…vigorously rejects the anything-goes theory. “The First Amendment was not intended to prohibit any regulation of speech,” he said in a Journal interview on July 7. On occasion that view has left him alone in dissent against a free-speech claim.
Even so, in the vast majority of cases he’s a strong defender of the freedom of speech. He accepts Holmes’s dictum and cited it in Matal v. Tam (2017), in which the court held that the government had violated a rock band’s constitutional rights by denying its trademark application for its racially insensitive name.
In oral arguments, Justice Alito has a knack for posing scenarios that reveal the untenability of speech restrictions, particularly on political speech. In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018), the court reviewed a statute banning “political” attire at polling places. Justice Alito asked if a National Rifle Association T-shirt would be permitted.
“No, it would not,” the state’s lawyer said.
“How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?”
“I think that would be viewed as political.”
“How about the First Amendment?” The lawyer said that would be OK but couldn’t explain why. He lost the case.
|