I have no doubt that if Ms Ruby-Sachs becomes a lawyer she will become more measured in her sense of the ethical implications of vigorous advocacy.

Ken Starr’s clients, repugnant as they are, are entitled to the same zealous representation that, say, Charles Manson got (one of the most gracious bits of legal writing you’ll ever see is Vince Bugliosi, in Helter Skelter, applauding the vigrorous defense attorneys he faced in the Manson case). Starr’s out-of-court comments, when not acting as a lawyer, likewise are, however odious, protected speech.

We as proponents of equal rights for gays and lesbians may be on the right side of history and morality (as I firmly believe), but that doesn’t give a monopoly on virtue, or a right to silence anyone in the marketplace of ideas. Liars come and go. The job of those happily possessed of the truth (as we see it) is to counter their lies at every turn – not to try to use the mechanisms of the state (whether explicitly or indirectly through state bar associations) to silence those whose opinions we find offensive. The same tactic can (and in fact is more likely to be) used against us in our turn, by the reactionaries who oppose equlaity and don’t want to hear anything about their moral blind spots. Don’t muzzle kan Starr, under the pretense of a bar ethics claim or otherwise. Challenge him, give his weak pseudo logic no rest, tear his argument apaert bit by bloody bit, until the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of his position stands exposed so all the world can see it. Then, the essentially decent mass of str straight electorate wil lrecognize how shameful his position is, and our victory will move forward.