Medary.com

The more shrill right/center voices (of which I am on occasion) are increasingly discussing "treason,", "sedition," and "aid and comfort" in the context of numerous anti-war commenters. Volokh (a law professor at UCLA) gives us an Assignment for discussion:

What do people think is right? Please post your thoughts in the comments, and think through the counterarguments. (For instance, if your observation is simply that George Galloway's speech is clearly protected because all criticism of the government is protected, you might want to at least explain how this would apply to Axis Sally's criticism of the government. Conversely, if your observation is that speech should be unprotected whenever it seems likely to help the enemy, you might want to confront the question of how we can have meaningful elections when no candidate can criticize the war effort — or even criticize the war's morality — for fear that such speech might help the enemy and might thus lead him to be thrown in prison.)

At some point, we will need to confront the blatant destructive speech coming from some quarters regarding the conflict between civilization and militant Islam. How? Public counter-demonstration (probably the best approach) or turning to the law (never the best option)?

Related: Victor Davis Hanson on what he terms "biteback."