Quote:
Originally Posted by myriverse
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You're not free to act on that, because they destroys freedom.
|
Define "destroys freedom".
Compelling a person to silence or speech is violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court clearly established this in
Wooley v. Maynard and expanded it in
Hurley (stating that protection against compelled speech "applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid").
The actual law aside, this discussion is also about what makes good policy. It is bad policy to have a law where people can forum shop until they find someone they disagree with and sue them over that mere difference of opinion all because they want to silence dissent. The abusiveness of such a system is blindingly obvious. Good policy is about preventing harm. A merchant refusing service does no harm. It is exactly as if the customer had never found that vendor in the first place. Yet, with these laws in place the merchant is forced to engage in activity and speech that he finds objectionable. These policies create harm and remove rights.
Compelled speech is unjust and contrary to the deepest constitutional, moral, and ethical principles of America.