It is interesting that a person with scholarly expertise on union law would fail to note that union activity in general was thought by jurists to violate antitrust laws and was proscribed to some degree until special legislation was passed in the 30's. In other words, unions in their basic activities have already been granted supra normal rights.

A resonable interpretation of Taft Hartley is that it represents a political pendulum swing against what was veiwed as abuse of those special rights.

Apart from the free speech issue raised, I had forgotten that Slate allowed its pages to be used by Jamin for partisan political organizing. As far as I'm concerned anyone should be free to so advocate, but I'm appalled that an enterprise with journalistic pretentions would so allow and continue to allow its pages to be used for political organizing.