Comments on: Liberty: A two-way street

By: News Roundup – 8/6/12 « RubinoWorld

News Roundup – 8/6/12 « RubinoWorld — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:26:51 +0000

[...] Liberty: A two-way street – Tenth Amendment Center Blog [...]

By: DarylLloydDavis

DarylLloydDavis — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:32:06 +0000

@MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment You wrote: Freedom of speech only works when we protect the most vile, offensive and unpopular messages.

And I ticked off several scenarios in which freedom of speech could work just fine within imposed limitations. I appreciate the offensiveness inherent in the censorship of expressed opinion. But the Tenth itself affords states a certain latitude to design divergent legal environments in accordance with the regional values and interests of their respective voters.

I designed a very localized system of direct democracy as a sort of extension of this principle. Allow the smallest possible political unit the widest possible latitude for both expression and experimentation–all while preserving basic constitutional rights and, of course, the freedom to leave and live elsewhere.

Thus, a tolerance, even for the intolerant, becomes possible The heart of the Tenth is a preservation of the right to be different from the rest of the nation–to chart one’s own cultural and legal course. Otherwise, it means nothing: a symbolic stipulation ahead of a complete assimilation.

And let us not forget that the good people of CSX might themselves have acted like grown ups and refused to bow to the pressure applied. We now live in a society in which true adults are almost extinct.

http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/in-brief/

By: MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment

MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:54:55 +0000

@DarylLloydDavis You’ve missed the point. The billboard only served as a springboard for the deeper point of the article. I never said the group didn’t have every right to apply pressure to get the billboard removed. And I wasn’t even attempting to address the nuances of First Amendment law. My objection is to the underlying philosophy expressed by the spokesperson for the group – “We aren’t opposed to free speech unless it’s hate speech.” He clearly believes he has a “right” to determine what expression is and is not permissible. The issue wasn’t the location of the billboard, it was the message expressed.

By: MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment

MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:37:03 +0000

@MatthewStephenRogers yup!

By: DarylLloydDavis

DarylLloydDavis — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:24:46 +0000

The Supreme Court has ruled that even free speech has its limits: One may not unnecessarily incite others into a panic–and this seems reasonable. But one other prohibitive distinction ought to be made: Though adults indeed ought not be protected from any reality, all sorts of protections ought to be in place in order to shield children from realities they need not yet confront.

In the above case of a public billboard, it would make a good deal of difference what the message or the image might be; because children will see it as surely as adults will.

This is not a society for grown ups alone–where we argue among ourselves like little children. Would it be so objectionable if, within a given state, say Texas, the voters decided that speech related to sex and sexuality is inappropriate for billboards and other public displays?

Were the motivation a religious imposition, one might answer that, yes, it would be insupportable. But if the measure were intended to compel adults to argue like adults, confining their disagreements to purely adult venues, it would be a reasonable restriction upon all citizens–and a sound protection for our children.

By: MatthewStephenRogers

MatthewStephenRogers — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:34:45 +0000

I actually agree with that as a lefty. Where I draw the line is when Christian haters want to use the state to limit gay peoples freedom of association as in anti gay marriage laws. Then it crosses the line from speech to action.

By: MatthewStephenRogers

MatthewStephenRogers — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:34:16 +0000

I actually agree with that as a lefty. Where I draw the line is when Christian haters want to use the state to limit gay peoples freedom of association as in anti gay marriage. Then it crosses the line from speech to action.