April 21, 2004

Tales of Red America

I recently moved from Blue America to Red America or more accurately...Red California to Green California. My impression is that it does not disappoint. Although some in the blogosphere celebrate the opportunity to coarsen public discourse, I for one am encouraged by the actions of the FCC. (What, you don't support freedom of speech? Not that speech, sorry. As I've alluded to before, that Freedom, is no "Freedom," but merely an ability to force on others the coarsening of public discourse. My impression was that the 1st amendment was intended to protect political speech. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has protected us from the founders and has found that political speech can be suppressed, but filth...why that's protected.) In any event, in a city which shall remain unnamed, I am on a city softball league where use of the F-Bomb results in being removed for the game. This kind of hard line stance I find encouraging. The idea that filth and trash should be allowed to pervade our lives is foolish. We should not encourage the coarsening of our society. We have nothing to gain, and plently to lose, parents and other concerned citizens, as voters, have every right, to, if in the majority, to demand more than the Lowest Common Denominator. What we forget, is that in forcing the lowest common denominator on the those who would prefer greater restriction those who coarsen society attack those individual's freedoms as well, this is where the political process is necessary. The First Amendment was never meant to be a protection to the LCD. Where there are competing freedoms, the political process must reign.

Posted by Joel at April 21, 2004 12:06 PM | TrackBack
Comments

If a social group wants to restrict "coarse" speech of its members in group settings - such as your softball club - or a homeowner or business owner wants to do the same in their establishment, more power to them. But the state has no business fining people - or, worse, jailing them - for saying things that other people dislike hearing.

Posted by: aphrael at April 22, 2004 12:29 AM (Permalink)

In many ways, the state is merely an aggregation of these more localized entities. I agree that the state has no ability to prohibit political discourse. So one can advocate for no indecency or obscenity laws, but it seems the actual law should be allowed. I should note, the "social group" did not restrict it, instead it was the city league umpires. Outside of political speech, I don't think the First Amendment applies, and every community up to the aggregated level of a state, and to the degree the Congress has such an enumerated power has the power to prohibit the coarsening of the public discourse.

Posted by: Joel B. at April 22, 2004 06:09 AM (Permalink)

I don't doubt that the central purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that no other speech should enjoy First Amendment protection at all. It's all well and good to note what the founders (supposedly) meant when they enacted the First Amendment, but we're also stuck with what the laws themselves actually say.

And I thoroughly reject the notion that the state is the aggregate of softball clubs, homeowners, business owners, and other private associations to whom neither the spirit nor the letter of the First Amendment applies. Of course those groups are free to ban obscenity. They're also free to ban Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Presbyterians, or any other group they may choose to be offended by. The state doesn't have that luxury, thank [censored].

Posted by: Xrlq at April 22, 2004 08:56 AM (Permalink)
Post a comment









Remember personal info?