AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Byline: MICHAEL MIKLOFSKY
You can call for the overthrow of the government, and nobody can touch you until you create a "clear and present danger."
But 9-11 has some people wondering whether the Supreme Court's "clear and present danger" rule is a mistake.
David Lowenthal says the high court has gone too far in protecting subversive speech. He'd like to see protections narrowed so the government can go after potential threats before it's too late.
Lowenthal is a professor emeritus at Boston College and a student of the influential, late philosopher Leo Strauss. He talked with IBD about his new book, "Present Dangers: Rediscovering the First Amendment."
IBD: How has the First Amendment changed since ratification?
Lowenthal: The Supreme Court in the course of the 20th century -- starting in the 1950s and the Earl Warren Court -- gave the First Amendment an interpretation radically different from that which the framers would have given it. One general view held from 1791 through the 1950s.