Monday Medley

What we read while picking the worst day to skydive from only 23 miles up…

• It was a rough weekend to be a Yankee fan, as the team dropped two games to Detroit and Derek Jeter broke his ankle and missed the first playoff game of his career. Joe Posnanski pondered life without Jeter, and also wrote about A-Rod’s struggles. He also hung out with Pete Rose.

• A revealing video on the abuses of NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy.

• What happens when sportswriters turn into celebrities?

• There was a Vice Presidential debate last week, but what topics weren’t covered? Just like the first Presidential debate, key issues were ignored by the candidates and moderator, such as the Drug War, which Gary Johnson (who has been excluded from the debates, of course) wrote about last week.

• Speaking of silenced opinions, what is happening to free speech?

• George Saunders short story!

• Reflections on last week’s holiday.

• An interview with the new showrunners of Community.

• A story on the weird deal between T. Boone Pickens and the Oklahoma State Athletic Department.

• Frontline‘s excellent piece on high school dropouts is available online. PBS is so much more than Big Bird.

First Amendment Symposium Part IV: The First Amendment is Properly Rated (But Perhaps for the Wrong Reasons)

“What he [John S.] says may be irrational, incoherent, unfounded, and foolish, but I defend to the death his right to say it.”

-Josh*

*I have as much claim to this phrase as Voltaire.

This response will proceed in three steps. First, I will respond to misguided presumptions that underlie John’s critique of the First Amendment: 1) that the goal of the First Amendment is not to suppress any speech and 2) that free speech absolutism is the only interpretive option for the First Amendment. Second, I will refute John’s two main claims: 1) The First Amendment is only aimed towards preventing government suppression of speech, but the coercive non-governmental forces and differential access to forums are problems just as serious that the First Amendment promotes or, at least, does nothing to prevent. 2) There is nothing inherent about the First Amendment that promotes the Millian benefits that flow from free speech. Third, I will discuss the Citizens United issue separately since it’s sufficiently distinct from the other issues in this response.

Citing Mill, John fallaciously argues that “the general principles that underlie actual liberty of thought and discussion” are primarily grounded in opposition to the “suppression of opinion, whether it be by government or any entity….” [emphasis added].