While it seems to me unclear that Judge Alito, who Hildon asserts was not moved by the identity of the plaintiffs in Saxe, did not take advantage of his sympathies to write what appears to be a pro-free-speech decision, I generally agree with Hildon that the effects of the decision support free speech and correctly strikes down an anti-harassment policy which is unacceptably broad and vaguely framed.
Colitti’s assertion that Alito’s decision “denies constitutional protection” to minority groups misunderstands both the principles and the application of the First Amendment. Colitti believes that preventing harassing speech, even as broadly and as vaguely defined as in the State College Area School District’s policy, “upholds individual protections” and protects the right to “unrestricted access to safe and orderly schools.” It is important to Colitti to demonstrate that having such laws is “a majoritarian view” in the State of Pennsylvania, as expressed by its legislature, and he goes on to inveigh that “the instant matter illustrates how courts are also manipulated to promote minority excesses” (though he does not name them or discuss them). He takes yet one more step by asserting that these manipulations, or these excesses have “empowered the imperialistic ideology” against which Cornel West argues in Democracy Matters.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/daniel_larner/1/