I'm afraid I lack the stamina to take on Bob Sheridan's post so I will simply ask a question:
Should the government have been enable to obtain a prior restraint on Linda Tripp's disclosures of Bill Clinton's relatonship (and any leaks of same)? At 01:32 PM 6/5/2003 -0700, you wrote: > Is that an oxymoron, restricting something that should be free? If >you're not an absolutist on free speech, where should we draw the line, or > lines? Should Conlawprofs be any greater believers in free speech than >others, because we teach the leading cases? All the normative >questions, about which more below. in Vietnam. After the lawyer for >the NYT perhaps conceded something, maybe the argument that sufficient >'national security' would justify a prior restraint, one justice is said >to have remarked to another that it was too bad the Times couldn't have >hired a lawyer who believed in free speech. The ability of free >speech concepts to morph into one another when they weren't colliding is >amazing. Okay, I'm used to doing that. beginning (the sex) in a >public mall before repairing to a nearby car. After all, we're >conlawprofs, not supposed to take anything at face value, otherwise we >have to turn in our wings. There are innumerable >facets. Some of us in criminal practice feel the guaranty >against unreasonable search and seizure is a pretty tattered cloth as the >result of the war on drugs. We do this all the time without having >a big problem about it. We even have laws enforcing the silence. >If I'm buying your company and you show me around your plant and disclose >certain secret processes, I'm not supposed to reveal them, and if I do I >can be held liable. By agreement, express or implied, I'm restricted in >my right to communicate true facts I've learned by this intimate business >relationship I have with you. If that is the rule in the commercial >setting, to protect your right to continue to make a living and to sell >your business, why shouldn't there be a similar rule which would apply in >intimate personal settings. Publicly going around together, and >marriage, are public expressions, in varying degrees, of acknowledged >levels of intimacy. As a matter of convention, we dishonor those who >kiss and tell, but uphold as paragons those who are discreet, meaning they >know how to keep their mouths shut and do. Someone kindly provided >the link here and the writeup was beyond ungentlemanly in its graphic >disclosures. He asked in true Conlawprof style. >As I say, the subject of free speech is kaleidoscopic, with no shortage of >example and counter-example, all illustrating some grand rule upholding or >denying communication, generally speaking. contract theory, doesn't >seem bad at all. his articles, of course. >his own, at least until I get them outlawed. Yours in free speech, >Bob Sheridan SFLS Frank Cross Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law CBA 5.202 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
