Robust political speech continues despite claims it is suppressed

Evidence

Froman (2007) then deplored the misuses of the First Amendment to justify protection of “marginal speech”: “The First Amendment is supposed to protect our right to speak out on subjects of public importance. Yet the First Amendment has been treated so cavalierly of late that its core purpose, the protection of political speech, has been dangerously diminished. At the same time, the First Amendment has been used to justify protection of marginal speech that would make our founding fathers blush and turn over in their graves.” Quite the contrary. The founders can repose serenely because the opposing constituencies are assailing each other unmercifully on the airwaves, in political campaigns, and on the floor of Congress with impunity. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1063

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the book’s through-line that claims of victimhood/suppression often serve moral disengagement; echoes the chapter’s ‘thought police victim’ rhetoric critique. — connects to: The BBC’s political coverage encodes unspoken rules suppressing political seriousness — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 738