part of what you were talking about with oliver wendell holmes mentally above that all the people didot like that was that the barrier to freedom of speech across the world? we go like this dictator because they can be above it all. that we cannot talk so well is that the great barrier back then to freedom of speech? >> the detachments and the difficulty breaking through to people? i suppose that it could be it seems that your question it gets that should we be engaged with with more aggressive diplomacy instead of force but also could be taken to ask what it takes to of grants free speech to become personal that is the case with a lot of legal issues. they are people but their relatives the removed from the concerns they can understand the personal consequences of legal questions they will be more informed and weigh more accurate. with that detests meant to have your head in the cloud is certain they a barrier. >> you mentioned today you mentioned the civil war experience how it affects the way he looks at the world. the paragraph is a fairly harsh view of the world. because to be a

and its transformation because of supreme court justice oliver wendell holmes opinion in the 1990 case abrams versus united states. he reports that first amendment rights were often stifle prior to the pinging and the justice himself was once a skeptic of the right to speak freely. this is about one hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. and congratulations, it's a really big event publishing about and what a wonderful and lively informative -- that's a particularly big deal so thank you very much. i really enjoyed reading and love the. i thought we would talk about what drew you to the project and a little bit about justice homes and the people he interacted with. .. >> and sweep away all opposition. to allow op opposition by speech seems to indicate you think it impotent or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result or that you doubt either your power or your premises. at this point holmes shifts direction almost very suddenly and very brilliantly, in my mind. but when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more they believe the

oliver wendell holmes.

san jose's case hinges on overturning a 1922 supreme court ruling written by justice oliver wendell holmes that gave baseball an exemption from antitrust laws a ruling that's been upheld by three other supreme courts. >> anybody thinks that baseball is just an exhibition as stated in the 1922 case hasn't been to a baseball game. baseball makes 8 to $10 billion a year. >> reporter: this attorney represents san jose. >> this exemption they claimed is long past, gone and is irrelevant to the economy of today. >> reporter: when do you expect a ruling? >> judge said he would do it soon. >> reporter: attorneys representing the league did not want to comment on the case. but in court they argued to allow the precedent setting case to stand, that san jose has no standing to bring a case and that the so-called business of baseball includes how the league is structured and where teams call home. the judge did not make a ruling today as you heard from the attorney. the judge said he would decide soon. that could mean anywhere from a couple of days to weeks. whatever way it goes, elizabeth, this is li

as the progressive justice oliver wendell holmes wrote in the 1920s of brown versus united states quote detached reflection cannot be demanded in presence of an uplifted knife. nearly a century later we shouldn't demand more of crime victims. of course any self-defense role there's the potential for injustice. for example, in a two-person altercation, one may be dead and the other dubiously claims self-defense. these cases like trayvon martin's, implicates the self-defense justification generally. if george zimmerman were the aggressive and has no self-defense rights at all. if trayvon attack is imminent in question was someone recently believed he was in danger but not what he could have retreated. if zimmerman provoked the confrontation he lost the protection of stand your ground law. in short, hard cases make skewed policy debates. while anti-gun lobbyists have used trayvon martin to pitch all sorts of gun control laws, what they really targeted is the right to armed self-defense. with stand your ground law's, yes, prosecutors need to show evidence to counter claims of self-defense,

as the progressive justice oliver wendell holmes wrote in the 1921 case of brown versus the united states quote the reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. nearly a century later we shouldn't demand more crime victims. of course in a self-defense rule the potential for injustice. for example in a two-person altercation one may be dead and the other dubiously claiming self-defense. these cases like trayvon martin's implicate the self-defense justification generally. if george zimmerman was the aggressor than then he has no self-defense rights at all. if trayvon attacks zimmerman the only question is whether zimmerman recently leaked he was in danger not what they could've retreated. if zimmerman provoked the confrontation he lost the protection of standard ground. in short cases make skewed policy debates. this committee is well familiar with that demagogic dynamic understanding appeared while anti-gun lobbyists have used that -- what they target is the right to arms self-defense. withstand your ground law's prosecutors need to show evidence to counter claims of

i think chief justice roberts was move bid the vision when he cited oliver wendell home holmes. i think this is an important point of disagreement too. you're equating robert's concern with legitimacy of being political. they're not the same thing. it's a delicate balance. he's john marshall came up with an legal argument that hadn't occurred with the party that occurred in the footnote of some 18th blog that no one else noticed. he did that because of the broader vision of the importance of court appearing to be nonpartisan and maintaining legitimacy. i think that's per missable. finally you said court harmed the legitimacy taken a black eye. the polls are complained. everything i have seen is suggest that the democrats, who had opposed the mandate before the position came down switched the decision and it may have been canceled out by republican disappointment. wroadly the legitimacy of the court doesn't seem to be affected by the health care decision. they don't remember john roberts switched his vote. when you make claim about the effective pes. i think it's important to loo