Constitutional Wish Lists?   

   Supposed something you say is called "hate speech." Could a court convict you on constitutional grounds?

   Your defense is the freedom of speech amendment.

   An annual Pew Research Center survey revealed that a majority (55 percent) of Americans now say courts should view the U.S. Constitution by current times and meanings, rather than as originally written. Some Democrats (78 percent) and Republicans (30 percent) want to see the Constitution interpreted with current meaning. 

   Michael McConnell, a former judge, now Stanford professor, questions the wording of the survey, not the Constitution. He thinks, "Most people think the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it has always meant."

   Some judges already use "current times," he said. Too often, judges don't apply "current meaning" but rather, "wishful thinking." 

   There is a need for civic education, McConnell said, but it doesn't have to be conservative education. "Teach them from the writings of the great progressive jurists. They understand that we have a fixed Constitution with enduring principles." 

   Meanwhile, the term, "hate speech" is an example of the slippery slope. It has no legal definition. Hate speech regulations are popular on college campuses, the illusion of force of law.

   If young people continue to push for unconstitutional concepts, McConnell said, their ideas will creep into the courts.

   First Amendment speech can't be censored even if it may be offensive to some. But, the professor says, young people reject that principle.
 

WORLD

   Speaking out for Jesus would be considered "hate speech" by some. 

      Jimmy