In City Journal, Michael Totten warns of allowing terrorists to veto free speech—something that law professor Eric Posner is surprisingly willing to allow happen.
"The terrorists' veto"
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.
Related Entries:
- Around the web, September 16
- Around the web, September 4
- Happy Fourth of July!
- If you're looking for another reason to root against the Miami Heat...
- Senator McConnell defends the First Amendment
- The unfair attack on ALEC
- FBI Stings: Combatting Terrorism or Creating It?
- Around the web, March 13
- "Porsche girl" lawsuit update
- Berkeley anti-Israel protest litigation
- Where Newt's wrong--and where he's right
- Life imitates parody department
- Around the web, October 31
- Proposed Eurozone solution: sue the ratings agencies
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




I am not sure we need to explain anything to a demonstrator in Cairo, or anywhere else, other than we cherish free speech even if it is personally repugnant to us. The expediency of "governmental interests" and "international relations and harmony" not to mention "protection of the public" will also auger toward curtailing critical speech. We have a long history of if starting with the Alien and Sedition Act in 1798, and further renditions of it during the Civil War and WW I. Powerful government officials never enjoy a critical look at whatever policy they have decided to pursue. So let's just go with free speech like the constitution mandates.
Need we even talk about government establishment of a religion (or incorporation of religious blasphemy laws into the US code)? I think not.