The Radical Attack
A basic tenet of modern free speech doctrine is that government must be ideologically neutral in regulating speech. This requirement of neutrality extends as well to the judiciary, including its formulation and application of free speech doctrine. Radical critics allege that free speech doctrine is infected with the very disease it is supposed to prevent in that it systematically discriminates against the interests of women and minorities. This is a serious charge that should be carefully examined.
Radicals make two quite different claims of discrimination, both of which I consider in detail here in Part 2.Chapter 5 is devoted to analyzing specific claims of discrimination, such as the charge that doctrine recognizes numerous exceptions to the free speech principle to protect the economic interests of the rich and powerful yet refuses to afford similar exceptions to protect the interests of women and minorities. Chapter 6 considers the deeper allegation that free speech doctrine is now and has always been an enemy of social progress and equality because it is an essential part of a structure that maintains the status quo and all its inequities.