- Feb 5, 2002
- 167,243
- 56,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Invoking Satan should be understood as a form of hate speech that poses a true threat to individuals as well as to society.
“Sympathy for the Devil” is the title of the 1968 Rolling Stones song composed by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. “Sympathy for the Devil” could also be the title of the article written by Christopher Borrelli and published by the Chicago Tribune about the Satanic Temple display in the rotunda of the Illinois State Capitol.
What is curious is that the article appeared on page one of the December 14, 2022, print edition of the Chicago Tribune. Page one articles of a major newspaper are usually reserved for news stories, not opinion pieces. Christopher Borrelli makes his opinion clear when he writes, “‘Tis the season for understanding. And who could use it more this holiday than the Satanists of Illinois?”
In affirming their right to the Satanists’ display in the rotunda, Mr. Borrelli proclaims, “Say what you will about Satanists, they know the Constitution.” To which I respond: Not so fast. The Constitution is not as simplistic as the Satanists may think.
I am a law school graduate and I keep my license to practice law current in the State of Illinois. As any lawyer can tell you, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, decided in 1919, the Court ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I.
Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic… The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” This ruling was partially modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action [e.g., a riot] and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Continued below.
www.catholicworldreport.com
“Sympathy for the Devil” is the title of the 1968 Rolling Stones song composed by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. “Sympathy for the Devil” could also be the title of the article written by Christopher Borrelli and published by the Chicago Tribune about the Satanic Temple display in the rotunda of the Illinois State Capitol.
What is curious is that the article appeared on page one of the December 14, 2022, print edition of the Chicago Tribune. Page one articles of a major newspaper are usually reserved for news stories, not opinion pieces. Christopher Borrelli makes his opinion clear when he writes, “‘Tis the season for understanding. And who could use it more this holiday than the Satanists of Illinois?”
In affirming their right to the Satanists’ display in the rotunda, Mr. Borrelli proclaims, “Say what you will about Satanists, they know the Constitution.” To which I respond: Not so fast. The Constitution is not as simplistic as the Satanists may think.
I am a law school graduate and I keep my license to practice law current in the State of Illinois. As any lawyer can tell you, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, decided in 1919, the Court ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I.
Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic… The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” This ruling was partially modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action [e.g., a riot] and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Continued below.
‘Reject the Devil’s lies and turn to Christ, the way, the truth, and the life’
www.catholicworldreport.com
