According to Ken and Popehat, Eugene Volokh is defending Crystal Cox in a free speech case. Here is some background on Ms. Cox. In discussing Volokh's defense, Ken makes the same point I have on many occasions:
Crystal Cox is not a sincere supporter of free speech. Crystal Cox is not a defender of the First Amendment. Crystal Cox supports free speech for Crystal Cox, but for her own critics, Crystal Cox is a vigorous (if mostly incoherent) advocate for broad and unprincipled censorship.
This should not surprise us. As I mentioned before, free speech cases often involve defending vile speech by repugnant people. Nearly as often, those repugnant people are no respecters of the rights of anyone else. Do you think the Nazis who marched at Skokie, if they had their way, would uphold the free speech rights of the religious and ethnic minorities who protested them? Do you imagine that Fred Phelps' church, given its choice, would permit the blasphemous and idolatrous freedoms it rails against?
No. We extend constitutional rights to people who, given the opportunity, would not extend the same rights to us. That's how we roll.
Crystal Cox is no different. Eugene Volokh and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are appealing the judgment against her to vindicate (through however flawed a vessel) important free speech issues.
But it is one thing for me to blog that everyone, including Illinois Nazis and Crystal Cox, should have free speech rights. It's quite another to actually spend days of one's time on a pro bono basis actually handling her legal work. So kudos to Volokh -- we all know the sewers need to be cleaned out from time to time but few of us actually will jump in and do it.