Last time I checked, the First Amendment still read as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So why, in this story about yet another expression of anti-Obama sentiment (what used to be called “dissent” and “the highest form of patriotism” when it was directed against George W. Bush), do we get this question asked?

Let us know what you think. Is the sign offensive, or is it freedom of speech?

Let’s try this answer on for size – it is certainly freedom of speech, but its offensiveness is purely in the eye of the beholder. The mere fact that something is offensive does not strip it of its First Amendment protection. Indeed, it is precisely those sentiments found offensive by the majority – or by a politically powerful minority – that are most surely covered by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. That’s why I find the question asked in the story to be so inane – and the equivalent of asking if a certain type of food is nutritious or delicious without considering that it could be both.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.