Ok, I understand the argument from the PC point of view.
But I don’t understand the argument from a history teacher’s point of view. The constitution prohibits government interference with a person’s expression; it doesn’t demand the government support everyone’s free expression.. The authorization of this plate does not infringe on anyone’s expression in any way, and is simply not a violation of the 1st amendment. Government takes sides on everything. I suppose now we cannot have signs telling us to stop at intersections unless there are also signs exhorting we respect those who chose not to stop, or signs posting s maximum speed limit unless there are also signs supporting the right to speed as well. What a joke the judiciary has become.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Discussion
NewOk, I understand the argument
Ok, I understand the argument from the PC point of view.
But I don’t understand the argument from a history teacher’s point of view. The constitution prohibits government interference with a person’s expression; it doesn’t demand the government support everyone’s free expression.. The authorization of this plate does not infringe on anyone’s expression in any way, and is simply not a violation of the 1st amendment. Government takes sides on everything. I suppose now we cannot have signs telling us to stop at intersections unless there are also signs exhorting we respect those who chose not to stop, or signs posting s maximum speed limit unless there are also signs supporting the right to speed as well. What a joke the judiciary has become.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?