<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: A Fourth of July thought	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:15:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Law schools roundup - Overlawyered		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-168030</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Law schools roundup - Overlawyered]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=31012#comment-168030</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] never prevail in the United States, Rep. Paul Ryan is free to go on speaking all he pleases [SSRN; more on Jeremy [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] never prevail in the United States, Rep. Paul Ryan is free to go on speaking all he pleases [SSRN; more on Jeremy [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anonymous Attorney		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-166963</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Attorney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=31012#comment-166963</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I wish I could get more excited.  The sensitivity/censorship culture in America and Britain is fairly parallel.  There are plenty of examples in which it&#039;s just as hard to exercise free speech in America even if you don&#039;t face jail.  In our &quot;free&quot; country,

* An atheist who puts up a billboard in Pennsylvania showing that the Bible condoned slavery will be hit with 1) massive protests, 2) media frenzy, 3) heavy pressure on the billboard renter to pull it down -- and he may do so 4) vandalism to the sign that isn&#039;t likely to be followed up too vigorously by the police, 5) death threats, 6) job loss.

* A company that declines to make gay pride T-shirts will be hit with a &quot;Human Relations Comission&quot; complaint and have to shell out money for a lawyer even if they eventually prevail.

* A person who advertises a room for rent on a white separatist website will be hit with a &quot;fair housing&quot; complaint and dragged through that process, and the site will be forced to take down the ad.  Heavy civil penalties to follow.

* Holocaust doubters seeking to meet in a restaurant may be 1) refused admission by the owners or 2) physically attacked by opponents, and the attackers ignored by federal authorities who would surely pursue with vigor a group of neo-Nazis who attacked a gathering of Holocaust survivors.

* A conservative speaker invited to a college campus is physically attacked, or the college pulls the invitation due to &quot;security concerns&quot;.

* A gathering of white &quot;race realists&quot; seeks to meet in a hotel, but threats are made to the hotel, which cancels the hosting contract, and police do nothing about it.  The heckler&#039;s veto, writ large.  Oh, and you won&#039;t hear about it in the newspaper.

* An atheist who dresses as &quot;Zombie Muhammad&quot; will be attacked physically, and his attacker set free by a judge who seeks to protect Muslim dignity.

I guess the bottom line is that you have free speech in America, unless you&#039;re an atheist, white separatist, or Ann Coulter at Wesleyan.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish I could get more excited.  The sensitivity/censorship culture in America and Britain is fairly parallel.  There are plenty of examples in which it&#8217;s just as hard to exercise free speech in America even if you don&#8217;t face jail.  In our &#8220;free&#8221; country,</p>
<p>* An atheist who puts up a billboard in Pennsylvania showing that the Bible condoned slavery will be hit with 1) massive protests, 2) media frenzy, 3) heavy pressure on the billboard renter to pull it down &#8212; and he may do so 4) vandalism to the sign that isn&#8217;t likely to be followed up too vigorously by the police, 5) death threats, 6) job loss.</p>
<p>* A company that declines to make gay pride T-shirts will be hit with a &#8220;Human Relations Comission&#8221; complaint and have to shell out money for a lawyer even if they eventually prevail.</p>
<p>* A person who advertises a room for rent on a white separatist website will be hit with a &#8220;fair housing&#8221; complaint and dragged through that process, and the site will be forced to take down the ad.  Heavy civil penalties to follow.</p>
<p>* Holocaust doubters seeking to meet in a restaurant may be 1) refused admission by the owners or 2) physically attacked by opponents, and the attackers ignored by federal authorities who would surely pursue with vigor a group of neo-Nazis who attacked a gathering of Holocaust survivors.</p>
<p>* A conservative speaker invited to a college campus is physically attacked, or the college pulls the invitation due to &#8220;security concerns&#8221;.</p>
<p>* A gathering of white &#8220;race realists&#8221; seeks to meet in a hotel, but threats are made to the hotel, which cancels the hosting contract, and police do nothing about it.  The heckler&#8217;s veto, writ large.  Oh, and you won&#8217;t hear about it in the newspaper.</p>
<p>* An atheist who dresses as &#8220;Zombie Muhammad&#8221; will be attacked physically, and his attacker set free by a judge who seeks to protect Muslim dignity.</p>
<p>I guess the bottom line is that you have free speech in America, unless you&#8217;re an atheist, white separatist, or Ann Coulter at Wesleyan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: PointOfLaw Forum		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-166736</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PointOfLaw Forum]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:31:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=31012#comment-166736</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Happy Fourth of July!...&lt;/strong&gt;

Randy Barnett annotates the Declaration of Independence. Wally Olson reminds us of one positive consequence of independence from Britain. Federal wildlife officials cancel Oregon fireworks show on grounds that noise will disturb seabirds.......]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Happy Fourth of July!&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Randy Barnett annotates the Declaration of Independence. Wally Olson reminds us of one positive consequence of independence from Britain. Federal wildlife officials cancel Oregon fireworks show on grounds that noise will disturb seabirds&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Reinsch		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-166734</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Reinsch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=31012#comment-166734</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The piece was by David Conway and was a nuanced analysis of the case of Lars Hedegaard in the Denmark Supreme Court.  Of course, anyone who reads Liberty Law Blog, its debate section, book reviews, or listens to its podcasts knows that it is not a super-ideologically charged site but one trying to drill down to first principles on an array of issues. Disagreements and discussion are welcome! To that end, thoughtful responses to this particular piece and all pieces on the site are welcome by me the editor.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The piece was by David Conway and was a nuanced analysis of the case of Lars Hedegaard in the Denmark Supreme Court.  Of course, anyone who reads Liberty Law Blog, its debate section, book reviews, or listens to its podcasts knows that it is not a super-ideologically charged site but one trying to drill down to first principles on an array of issues. Disagreements and discussion are welcome! To that end, thoughtful responses to this particular piece and all pieces on the site are welcome by me the editor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Walter Olson		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-166693</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Olson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=31012#comment-166693</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Curiously, even Liberty Law Blog has &lt;a href=&quot;http://libertylawsite.org/2012/05/07/cant-words-hurt-as-much-as-sticks-and-stones/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;seen fit&lt;/a&gt; to run an article by a British academic promoting Waldron&#039;s views and &quot;hate speech&quot; legislation more generally, drawing on the outlier 1952 &quot;group-libel&quot; case of Beauharnais v. Illinois, now &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unc.edu/~wicannon/cases.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;widely regarded&lt;/a&gt; as implicitly overturned by later Supreme Court jurisprudence.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curiously, even Liberty Law Blog has <a href="http://libertylawsite.org/2012/05/07/cant-words-hurt-as-much-as-sticks-and-stones/" rel="nofollow">seen fit</a> to run an article by a British academic promoting Waldron&#8217;s views and &#8220;hate speech&#8221; legislation more generally, drawing on the outlier 1952 &#8220;group-libel&#8221; case of Beauharnais v. Illinois, now <a href="http://www.unc.edu/~wicannon/cases.html" rel="nofollow">widely regarded</a> as implicitly overturned by later Supreme Court jurisprudence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
