(We’re pretty sure this is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they wanted to ensure freedom of speech to all of this nation’s citizens.)
Don't have a clue, then. The first amendment was directed toward the fed, and had nothing to do with this sort of display. It's purpose was to protect people's right to criticize the government and to voice that opposition. The backdrop was the British Crown where disagreeing with state policy could get you tossed in jail. States were free to write and enforce anti-obscenity laws, and they did so, with no worries over first amendment issues. The federal protection of obscenity is modern interpretation of the federal constitution. One that has little to do the is original intent. All one has to do is read some early statutes directed toward the issue to demonstrate the case.
TEECEE - Here's what happens when you allow people to assert their "rights" in such a manner. The offended neighbor puts up even bigger lights with an even more obscene display. Then the first neighbor might put up signs with words instead of lights and so on and so on. Eventually it escalates to a Hatfields vs. McCoys scenario and somebody could end up hurt. Freedom of speech is one thing, but if the person asserting that right doesn't have the maturity and decency to censor themselves then the police have every right to step in and do it for them.
Show Comments
Add a Comment
9 Comments
post something funniest pics
December 06 2012 at 3:20 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Replythis is so boring
http://lolthis.com
"People do not have a right to NOT be offended."
December 02 2012 at 6:51 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply(We’re pretty sure this is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they wanted to ensure freedom of speech to all of this nation’s citizens.)
December 02 2012 at 5:58 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyDon't have a clue, then. The first amendment was directed toward the fed, and had nothing to do with this sort of display. It's purpose was to protect people's right to criticize the government and to voice that opposition. The backdrop was the British Crown where disagreeing with state policy could get you tossed in jail. States were free to write and enforce anti-obscenity laws, and they did so, with no worries over first amendment issues. The federal protection of obscenity is modern interpretation of the federal constitution. One that has little to do the is original intent. All one has to do is read some early statutes directed toward the issue to demonstrate the case.
no a good way to get along
December 01 2012 at 9:24 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyWhile it's easy to take offense at peoples poor judgement and behavior, it's far worse to have police trample the rights of people to do so.
December 01 2012 at 6:03 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyTEECEE - Here's what happens when you allow people to assert their "rights" in such a manner. The offended neighbor puts up even bigger lights with an even more obscene display. Then the first neighbor might put up signs with words instead of lights and so on and so on. Eventually it escalates to a Hatfields vs. McCoys scenario and somebody could end up hurt. Freedom of speech is one thing, but if the person asserting that right doesn't have the maturity and decency to censor themselves then the police have every right to step in and do it for them.
December 02 2012 at 2:05 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyIt's a shame she couldn't use all that energy in a more positive manner. Might improve her relationship in her neighborhood.
December 01 2012 at 11:15 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyWhat is it?
December 01 2012 at 10:14 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThis woman is a total whack job!
December 01 2012 at 10:07 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply