Check out this week's cover story in Seven Days. It's all about VCAM client John Long, AKA \\\\"Mr. Happy.\\\\" It's a pretty good article except for a few factual errors (they list the wrong air time of John's show and mistakenly state that the First Amendment allows for obscene material to be broadcast). Overall, however, I find the tone of the article all too incredulous about First Amendment protections. Some examples:
\\\\"But when does free speech cross the line into something else?\\\\"
\\\\"...some contend that Long pushes the envelope of \\\\"unfettered free speech\\\\" too far.\\\\"
\\\\"Peggy Luhrs, an activist with the R.U.1.2? Queer Community Center in Burlington, contends that such remarks fall outside the bounds of free speech.\\\\"
It's fine to report that \\\\"some contend\\\\" that Long is overstepping their personal limitations on free expression, but that's not how the law works. It's not against the law to hate people and say so. Period. To quote Flameape on the subject: \\\\"them's the rules.\\\\" there's tons of case law on this. So the question the article raises about \\\\"how should a community that celebrates racial, ethnic, religious and sexual diversity respond to someone like Long?\\\\" is moot. Everyone is free to express themselves. That includes Long and his detractors. \\\\"the community\\\\" is not a monolithic group-think entity that will or will not respond to John Long. We are individuals with a specific set of protected rights. That's all.
I just wish the article was a little more matter-of-fact regarding the law. Otherwise I thought Picard did a good job.