The historical tendency of the US Supreme Court over time has been to 
expand the sphere of protected civil liberties. Many in the judicial community are uncomfortable
when the Court diminishes those liberties instead, as it did in 1942 with Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 
decision, which limits freedom of expression if that expression contains indecent speech or so-called 
"fighting words". Chaplinksy is considered an aberration, almost a mistake, like Plessy v Ferguson (1896, 
separate but equal) and the 1858 Dred Scott decision to sanction slave-hunting in the Northern states
on the eve of the Civil War. 
   Despite this particular ruling, however, legal guarantees of free speech remain more robust in the US 
than in the rest of the Free World. For example, consider:

Canada, where the Canadian Hate Crimes Unit has the authority to seize and incinerate
books it finds offensive, or
England, where public use of the N***** word is outlawed, or
Germany, where Holocaust denial is forbidden, and Nazi graphics like the swastika
and the SS lightning runes are banned, or
France and Italy, where it's technically illegal in some jurisdictions to disparage
religion (meaning Islam), or
Wales, specifically the charming seaside resort town of Aberystwyth, where it remained
illegal until 2009 to hold public screening of Monty Python's Life of Brian.


The Oblivion Seekers currently reside in Portland Oregon, 
and incline toward an absoulutist interpretation of the right to free speech.







And furthermore . . .