That’s me, not top defamation lawyer Alan Shanoff:
These human rights experts are supposed to set aside their personal views and review each case objectively, distinguishing between statements that expose members of vulnerable groups to mere disdain and dislike which are permissible and enmity and extreme ill-will which are not permissible. Even if such an exercise were capable of being handled with complete objectivity it would be contrary to any concept of a constitutional right of freedom of speech.
What is a constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech if it does not encompass the ability to speak the truth?
More from my site
