... like this. When I challenged Nebraska's stalking law on the grounds that it's enforcement interfered with the First Amendment I was disappointed, but not surprised, that the State Supreme Court's opinion affirming the conviction did not contain even the words "free speech" or "First Amendment."

What shocked me, however, was that when I asked for help from the ACLU in challenging this in the U.S. Supreme Court the State Exec Director wrote:

"The ACLU has two competing interests in cases like this: on one hand is the First Amendment free speech rights and on the other is the substantive due process right of students to attend public school for their free public education without interference. Thus we do work on free speech rights for students, but we also do work to prevent bullying and harassment of students. (We are one of the supporters of the current anti-bullying bill pending at the Unicameral, for example.)"

So, in other words, when a public defender, working alone, requested help from the ACLU on a free speech issue I found out that not only would they not help but they were a "supporter" of a pending anti-bullying bill that went much further than the law I wanted to challenge.

Apparently, like a lot of Democrats, they not only stopped actively resisting assaults on the principles they claim to uphold but also began working hand in hand with the groups making these assaults.

Keep in mind, I wasn't pro-bully; I just wanted some court to analyze a stalking law that criminalized "willfully harass[ing]another person... with the intent to injure, terrify, threaten, or intimidate" alongside the limits of the 4th Amendment.

Like the scene in Braveheart where Mel Gibson throws off the mask of a person he thought was the enemy only to reveal his own Lord, I discovered that the group I thought was fighting to enforce free speech was actually "supporting" it's further erosion with more anti-bullying legislation.

Don't they realize today's bully is tomorrow's activist just as the founders of this country were once called terrorists?

... I had the suspicion too that the nat'l ACLU might have helped. My client was a juvenile charged with harassing a girl in high school and he changed his mind about an appeal because he "aged out" about 2 months after the last opinion came down and because my initial efforts to find help didn't work. I was a little afraid that his age would make the issue moot as courts frequently avoid substantive issues when they can rule on procedural ones. I would love to find another case though to test this, so I'll look for an adult client and heed your advice. Thanks.

... and his response took him "off message," giving observers a glimpse of who he really is, how he sees his role, and the way he responds to legitimate criticism.

In fact, you are correct that his response speaks for itself and makes your point: he sees himself as one of the pigs who are more equal than others, despite what the Constitution says, and probably expects, like Russert promised, that the conversation is off the record unless you warn him first.

In other words, you did the work journalists are supposed to do: reveal to the voting public the often hidden truth behind the images the candidates (or "journalists") try to project.

This kind of journalism is just so rare anymore that John King sees it not as the reason the First Amendment was created but as an example of a groundling not being capable of comprehending the drama happening on the stage.

As revealing as his response is, it says more about his profession than himself: The level of skepticism he shows and criticism he delivers is actually pretty typical for modern, mainstream "journalists." He isn't the problem as much as just another symptom.

While we see how much his response reveals by itself, his colleagues (assuming they were willing to slum over to our neighborhood) will probably think he silenced a heckler professionally.

His "profession" has just fallen so far that, like those correspondents listening to Colbert, most of them will miss the point. They've been invited to the club so many times that the cries of the unwashed now sound unsophisticated.

No one they know sees the emperor's nakedness, so why trust the word of some boy on the internet (that's how he sees you) who dares to point out what's obvious to those outside the privileged circle?