State of free speech doctrine at Harvard

Harvard lawprof Noah Feldman on the Paris/Fox case: let government sue media for saying (or maybe even for letting guests say) wrong things about government. Sure, what could go wrong?

Related, and outrageous: Morgan State University (Baltimore) journalism school dean wants to classify religiously irreverent speech as “fighting words,” which would throw into doubt its legal protection [DeWayne Wickham, USA Today] More: Allahpundit, Taranto/WSJ, The College Fix; edited to reflect Wickham’s (non)-clarification of his stance in the last-named link).

P.S. Via @benjaminlam: “Today’s Straits Times [Singapore] carried Feldman’s article.”


  • Here’s another good takedown of Wickham:

  • Interesting idea. So when some atheist mocks religion, the believers have to attack in order to preserver they future rights?

    Or maybe we could hold that since some political views cause extremists to take action, we should not allow them to be mentioned. If far right extremists were to bomb a left-friendly newspaper over a less than flattering article they too offense to, should we say that printing progressive ideas should be banned?