[EL] is it now conventional wisdom that "liberal" means "anti-free-speech"?

[Richard Winger]

I am dismayed that the NY Times today, and analyses by others of a few days ago, seem to take it as conventional wisdom now that "conservatives" are pro-free-speech and "liberals" are anti-free-speech.  The NY Times today has a front page story about the "liberals" winning more cases in the last term of the court than they have in a long time.  The sidebar includes the Texas license plates case as a "liberal" victory.  The sidebar doesn't mention Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona, but presumably the authors classified that decision as a "conservative" victory.
"Liberal" and "liberty" have the same root.  Would one now say that Sullivan v New York Times was a "conservative" victory?
I would say that Justice Thomas wrote a liberal decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert.  He struck down a government restriction on speech.  Is that no longer "liberal"? Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150701/4534bc1d/attachment.html>