Glenn Reynolds Interview on C-Span

I caught a portion of a C-Span interview with Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. He himself provides a transcript here.

It was a good interview, although I wish Brian Lamb had pursued some deeper lines of questioning. I like Mr. Lamb’s low-key personal style, but sometimes his relaxed approach causes him to change subjects rather than draw out more substantial answers. (I don’t like the style of Charlie Rose as much, for example, but his interviews tend to be more penetrating.)

Many of the questions Mr. Lamb asked about Instapundit and blogging in general were on a somewhat introductory level. Still, Mr. Reynolds’s answers contained a lot of interesting information. And the most intriguing part of the interview had nothing to do with blogging.

Here’s what I found interesting (including from the transcript which I’ve since read):

There’s much more here, but that’s enough to give readers a taste. As the man himself would say, read the whole thing.

Also, I found the case involving Charles Reynolds, Glenn’s father, on Lexis. This was the case involving a Billy Graham revival which included a guest appearance by Richard Nixon. Charles Reynolds was fined $20 for protesting there. The case is Reynolds v. Tennessee, 414 U.S. 1163 (1974). The opinion was a simple denial of cert, over a brief but impassioned dissent by Justice Douglas. The case makes for interesting reading just on the facts alone.

Here is the conclusion of J. Douglas’s dissent:

“By grounding petitioner's conviction on his participation in the planning of the protest the state appellate courts place criminal liability on freedom of expression in its most pristine form. Petitioner's role was not contested. He attended the meetings and voiced his approval of some form of protest against the President's appearance, but it appears that at virtually every opportunity he urged the group to keep its protest peaceful and silent. He cannot be held liable because some members of the group chose to express their views in an illegal manner, particularly when, as here, there is no evidence that the group ever agreed to conduct its protest unlawfully or that petitioner ever acquiesced in such a decision. Nor was petitioner charged with conspiracy. I would grant the petition for certiorari.”  Reynolds, 414 U.S. at 1171 (1974).

February 27, 2006 in Interviews | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack