Confederate flag

How Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom

The State is required to protect hate but it has no business expressing opinions on anything-thus it has no business flying the Confederate flag.

|

The tragedy of a mass murder in Charleston, S.C., last week, obviously motivated by racial hatred, has raised anew the issue of the lawfulness of the State expressing an opinion by flying a Confederate flag at the Statehouse, and the constitutionality of the use of the First Amendment to protect hate speech and hate groups. The State has no business expressing opinions on anything, and it is required to protect hate. Here is the law.

Let's start with the proposition that hatred of persons is a profound disorder, and it is no doubt motivated by far deeper errors of thought and judgment than admiration for a flag. I recognize that to some in our society, the Confederate flag represents resistance to federal authority enforced by military aggression; while to others, it represents racial oppression under color of law bringing about the worst violations of the natural rights of born persons in American history—namely slavery. To me, it represents both. Yet, the government has no business flying it.

In a lawsuit brought against the State of Texas seeking to compel Texas to offer automobile license plates bearing the Confederate flag, the Supreme Court in dismissing the suit ruled just two weeks ago that the government enjoys the same freedom of speech as do persons. This is a novel and dangerous idea. It places government—an artificial creature based on temporary consensus and a monopoly of force—on the same plane as human beings, who are natural creatures with immortal souls endowed by our Creator with natural rights.

Natural rights, foremost among which after life itself is freedom of expression, are gifts from God. They are not manmade and hence cannot be transferred to a manmade entity. They are as natural to us as are the fingers on our hands. We don't need a government permission slip in order to exercise them.

In the case of speech, it is especially dangerous to accord the natural rights of persons to the government because the state can use its monopoly of force to silence, drown out or intimidate the speech of any persons it hates and fears. When the state speaks, its expressions have an aura of legitimacy and can be used for narrow, sectarian, even hateful purposes. But the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of speech.

If I were in the South Carolina legislature, I'd vote to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse because I'd silence all government speech except that which is universally accepted (like the American flag), utterly innocuous (like the library is closed on Sundays), or absolutely necessary for governance (like speed limits on state roads). Otherwise, who cares what the government thinks?

Cuauhtemoc-Hidalgo Villa-Zapata/Flickr

The First Amendment to the Constitution also protects the rights of every person to embrace hatred. It guarantees all persons the freedom of thought, expression, and association. Thought and association are guaranteed unconditionally. Imagine the dangers of the government telling us how to think.

The rule on speech is that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to address it before the violence it suggests may come about. Stated differently, the First Amendment absolutely bars the government from interference with a person's thoughts or associations, and permits interference with a person's expressions only if necessary to prevent immediate lawless violence when there is no time for more expression to do so first.

But the government may never, consistent with the First Amendment, interfere with expression because it despises or fears the views animating the expressions. This temptation is another danger of according the government the freedom of speech.

Hatred, though invariably destructive to those it animates, is a protected mode of thought and expression and may form the basis for association. Groups may be formed based on hate, and the government may not interfere with them because it hates and fears their hatred. Some hate groups are merely a vessel for folklore and group comfort; some are willing to use violence to advance their nefarious beliefs.

But the willingness alone to use violence is not criminal; it is only the actual use of violence that is. Thus, it is the manifestation of hatred as lawless violence that may be prosecuted, but the manifestation of hatred as a unifying idea is protected and may not be prosecuted.

The remedy for hatred is reason. Hatred of persons is always unreasonable. It takes a characteristic of birth—color, ethnicity, religion, for example—and unreasonably ascribes mythological and unitary traits to it. Those ascribed traits usually appeal to the base fears and biases of the hater, feed his weaknesses, and provide him with a mental haven for his failings. Yet, reason and overwhelming opinion to the contrary can dilute hatred.

Hatred sometimes provides a dark place of comfort for the weak, and it can be addictive. We must guard against its allurements. Lord Byron in "Don Juan" warned of hatred's irony:

Now hatred is by far
The longest pleasure.
Men love in haste, but they
Detest at leisure.

Yet, God, too, hates. He hates sin, and we, as well, must hate sin. Like the families of those murdered in Charleston, we must imitate our Creator: We must love the sinner and the hater.

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO || DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Matt Welch Talks About Reason's Gag Order on HuffPost Live

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another misguided “First Amendment” editorial. Clearly a strong government, in a system of ordered liberty such as ours, needs to have the right to speak, so that it can guide all citizens towards a better understanding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and similar topics, helping us understand which academics have isolated, crank opinions and which are wrongly accused of charlatanry, as well as which forms of satirical expression are acceptable and which cross the line into an illegally inappropriate twisting of words that stirs up controversy. Judges form one of the three branches of government, and when they assist government prosecutors in explaining these matters ? indicating, for example, that certain satirically worded confessions of plagiarism (“if I had given credit to this man, I would have been banned from conferences around the world”) are criminally harmful to academic reputations ? they are availing themselves of the God-given right to educate those of us who need just a little bit of the good old-fashioned educating that universities no longer provide. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    1. NO U

      1. Wait, don’t scare him off. We haven’t gotten some of the good ole fashioned crazy in a long time. I like this one. It’s a judge’s duty and right to educate us!

    2. You forgot the /sarc

    3. HERC??

      1. Nah, needz moar [BRACKETS].

      2. Please, please, please let that be so!

    4. TITS OR GTFO

  2. Yet, the government has no business flying it.

    The Judge is way off here. Yes, the Confederate flag shouldn’t be representing any American government, but not because of slavery. It should be taken down because it looks too much like the Union Jack. Go back to England you limey fucks.

    1. When a bunch of dudes were sitting around brainstorming flag ideas, did no one point this out? No one said “hey, maybe we should pick new colors?”

      The whole thing is terribly unoriginal.

      1. I think it’s based on Scotland’s St. Andrew’s Cross:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Scotland

        Because, you know, Scots-Irish.

        The Union Jack also has a St. George’s Cross.

    2. Hooray finally! I’ve been shouting this into the wind tunnel for years! freaking hypocrites. Check out the Hawaiian state flag. The check the King Charles flag of slavery – but what is missing is the Confederate flag…not on the slave flag at all.

  3. I haven’t the slightest issue with the Battle Flag of the Confederacy flying atop a military memorial in commemoration of the countless fallen in the Civil War. For four years, Americans slaughtered Americans, and whatever you analysis and conclusions of the conflict’s technicalities, Confederate soldiers were Americans. Obsessive progressives, the intellectual and functional retards that they are, can go fuck themselves for the screeching horseshit they’ve thrown around in an effort to have the flag discarded, and anybody who’s bought into their miserable crap can go fuck themselves doubly.

    1. That’s a memorial not actual war graves you twit. Spare me your nonsense that any post-war argument among the living about how to interpret a war has anything to do with actual respect for the dead.

      1. And by the way – that confederate flag did not fly above that memorial until 1961. IOW – it never had squat to do with actual respect for the actual dead. Rather it was purely manipulating those dead four generations after the fact to serve the agenda of Jim Crow segregationists.

        1. It was moved from atop the Capitol’s dome only a few years ago, actually. You’re feverishly dismissing 160 years of American history to buttress a singular, exclusionary claim — that everything pertaining to Confederate symbolism, and especially something as innocuous as a Battle Flag upon a military memorial, arises from segregationist jockeying. Don’t be a fucking idiot.

          1. That flag over the SC Statehouse was first hoisted in 1961. Specifically to mark the centennial of the firing on Fort Sumter (no confederate dead). The newspapers at the time all said the flag was going to fly for one week for the events. The only legislator on the centennial committee re that flag said that he wanted to keep it flying for one year. 11 months later he introduced legislation to keep it flying – with no end date.

            The pols who spoke during that weeks events didn’t speak of the actual Civil War much at all. But from what is quoted from them:
            Reconstruction was more destructive than the Civil War (so where is the memorial to the Reconstruction dead?)
            The KKK ‘rescued’ and ‘restored’ the South (so where is the memorial to the dead KKK’ers?)
            And of course in favor of all Jim Crow legislation that in 1961 actually prevented actual ‘centennial ceremonies’

            Spare me. They used the dead back then for their own agenda. And you’ve just bought into their BS.

      2. That’s a memorial not actual war graves you twit.

        I’m aware of that, which might explain why I used the word ‘memorial’ to refer to the object of my argument.

        Spare me your nonsense that any post-war argument among the living about how to interpret a war has anything to do with actual respect for the dead.

        What the fuck does flying a Battle Flag over a statue of a Confederate soldier have to do with “post-war arguments among the living about how to interpret a war”?

    2. “Confederate soldiers were Americans.”

      Then the US flag should serve just fine honoring them, no?

      One doesn’t need to fly the Nazi flag to honor Germans soldiers (who were conscripted and/or didn’t commit war crimes) who died in WW2 or the Hammer and Sickle to honor those who died fighting the Nazis (though I’m sure many probably do). One doesn’t have to fly the Confederate flag to remember the fallen, and the state government especially doesn’t have to do it, on statehouse grounds no less.

      1. Actually you’re a fucking idiot since to honor German soldiers you would use The Iron Cross (since that was the symbol of the Wermacht). Its very much appropriate to honor Confederate soldiers with the Regimental Battle Flag as it was never a flag of the CS government.

      2. Fuck the U.S. flag. Go suck some more fed dick.

  4. all government speech except that which is universally accepted (like the American flag)..

    Citation needed.

    or absolutely necessary for governance (like speed limits on state roads).

    Citation needed.

  5. On the bright side, look at the status signaling opportunities this flag has created for the usual crowd of enlightened SWPL asswipes. You couldn’t buy a better occasion for nausea inducing moral preening.

  6. Look, we have to agree that the symbols of the Old South are irredeemably racist, and must be removed, but that doesn’t go far enough, because we still have The South, which is irredeemably racist. The only solution I can see is to completely remove The South from the Union, so that we can finally have the racist-free nation for which we pine.

    1. I bet the South would be all f….HEY! Wait a minute!

    2. Don’t provide them with any ideas.

    3. I’ve heard sentiments approaching this.

      Prog: The South is much more violent than the rest of the union. There’s evidence and stuff. Do you know which states had the Ku Klux Klan?

      Me: [feeling mischievous] Indiana? California? Oregon?

      Prog: OK, you’ve pissed me off, please stop talking.

      1. The North is full of belligerent pinkos. Force its secession into a neo-Soviet republic.

      2. No shit. The Klan practically took over the government of Indiana back in the 30’s

        1. Some southerners miss this bit. Arguing that Indiana is racist is irrelevant. People in New York dread flying over Indiana every bit as much as Alabama….nobody on either coasts thinks of Indiana as some bastion of northern enlightenment. To a New Yorker, Indiana is a farmer in overalls wading through cold pig shit. The image of a person in alabama is similar…but the pig shit is hotter, the mullet a little longer and the person is thinking about hating black people more.

          Pointing out KKK problems with Indiana to a New Yorker is just confusing to them…internally they are like “ya fucking Indiana”

      3. KKK was also in Canada. We should remove Canada from the Union.

    4. Please please don’t throw me in the briar patch=)

  7. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is calling for the removal of Robert E Lee statue and renaming of Lee Square in New Orleans. I guess the call to rename Jefferson Davis Pkwy will be next.

    And of course, we must tear down the Jefferson Memorial because he was a slave owner. And so it follows we must demolish the University of Virginia and the Jefferson statues there for the same reason.

    And we must remove all memorials to Teddy Roosevelt for killing Indians. And it follows we must destroy monuments to FDR because he interned Japanese Americans during WWII.

    And so on… I would have much appreciated a supposed intellectual website to not join in the mob’s chorus to ban flags and such. I am disappoint.

    1. Entirely without jest, I don’t doubt the censorious progressives crusading against Confederate symbolism would actually seek such sterilization of our society. They would never gain enough support to perform it with such totality and haste as your sarcastic example suggests, but they’re patient, when they have to be.

      Frankly, if South Carolinian legislators have any courage whatsoever, they’ll resist this stupidity fervently. It’s hoisted above a memorial to Confederate fallen. It’s not flown above the Capitol. In fact, it’s explicitly displayed in such a manner as can never honestly be said to symbolize the flag’s authority over anything. It’s a memorial, for fuck’s sake.

      1. “Frankly, if South Carolinian legislators have any courage whatsoever, they’ll resist this stupidity fervently.”

        I think the word went out from the Republican Party high command to get rid of the durned flag. Otherwise the Dems and their media lackeys will be able to keep up a constant drumbeat of “racism” in a desperate attempt to make people forget how much Obama messed up domestic and foreign policy.

        1. Shamefully, the electorate is probably retarded enough to fall for it, too.

        2. They need message discipline. Recall how in 2012, every other question from the media to the Rep candidates was about some Rep state legislator who said rape doesn’t make you pregnant. If they get their way, the media will make the campaign about how Republicans love the Confederate flag.

          1. A catastrophic trait many Republican politicians exhibit is to be unnecessarily apologetic for holding views that aren’t actually offensive, or deserving of moral censure. Not a single Republican, libertarian, or any individual adhering to any non-retarded worldview, from what I’ve seen, has fought the implication that defending the display of the Battle Flag of the Confederacy atop a military memorial to Confederate dead is somehow indicative of substantive support for the sinful outlooks of Confederate slaveholders, for instance. They all engage in half-assed verbal gymnastics, as if it’s an indefensible view to harbor.

            Nobody’s advocating the integration of the Battle Flag into Old Glory’s canton here. Stop apologizing to the pinkos, and start ripping them new assholes for their retardation.

            1. But why debate on your opponent’s ground? Lance the boil and move on, ask the Dems to defend some of their…more *interesting* positions.

              1. Here’s a good one: “Why do you hate black people? You clearly do. And women. And the disabled. And most minorities, in fact. If you didn’t, you’d ensure they had free and easy access to implements of self-defense, such as firearms, to protect themselves. But you don’t, do you, Ms. Clinton, you racist hag?”

                Hillary: “UM UM UH WUUUH?!”

      2. Smoking bans..

      3. This is an iconoclastic purge based on a bunch of people’s emotional outburst in regards to the church shooting. It’s not going to extend that far or consistently because its a bunch of people blindly ‘DOING SOMETHING’ to make themselves feel better and to pat themselves on the back for their non-racist opinions.

    2. And let’s rename the College of William and Mary so it no longer reminds us of those Protestant usurpers.

      1. Washington was a white slaveholder. Rename the state and the federal district in order to distance them from association with such an awful, racist, offensive individual.

        1. Oh yay. I’m so looking forward to living in the State of Obama.

          1. It’ll have that awful, shit-eating grin of his on the state flag, too, I bet.

          2. You know, it could happen.

          3. Confused State?

    3. we must demolish the University of Virginia

      *revs pickup full of fertilizer in approval*

    4. “And of course, we must tear down the Jefferson Memorial because he was a slave owner. And so it follows we must demolish the University of Virginia and the Jefferson statues there for the same reason.”

      Some prog WAS calling for that! This is why you never apologize of give them anything they want. They aren’t just going to stop at stealing that one slice of pie. No, they want it all. And after they take all of your pie they will demand you to bake another and they’ll steal that one too.

  8. Jesus fucking CHRIST I so don’t care about this.

    Flags and gender benders. WOO HOO!

    Brings out the KULTUR AND REGION warZZzz! Double plus suck!

    1. How else can we distract from an imperial President, the criminal behavior or the former Secretary of State, the awesome failure of Obumblecare, disastrous negotiations with terror states, and the neutering of congress if we don’t stir up controversy over meaningless bullshit?

      1. Obama: “I’m systematically deconstructing the Republic by overt acts of treason and despotism, but LOOK OVER THERE — CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAGS UPON CONFEDERATE WAR MEMORIALS! OMG WAT?”

        1. That about sums up this administration

      2. This made up controversy is a perfect distraction from the Fast Track Authority for Trans Pacific Partnership Trade. No articles on that in weeks, but there are 20 articles on this made up controversy here.

  9. “Imagine the dangers of the government telling us how to think.”

    Do we REALLY have to imagine that, or can we just watch the news and see it?

  10. utterly innocuous (like the library is closed on Sundays)

    “Innocuous”?! Sunday is my *reading* day!

  11. It’s interesting how a homicidal maniac somehow represents the soul of South Carolina – racist to its core – but their Indian-American governor, their African-American Senator, and their prosecution of that cop who killed a black guy are somehow meaningless and don’t represent the state’s racial attitude at all.

    1. I’ve encountered actual bigotry in the South precisely… never. I’m really sick and fucking tired of this progressive bullshit that hoists unto us this false, permanent baggage. Whoopty-fucking-do, the Southern states once had institutional racism enshrined in law… as did every other place in the whole fucking world. Get over it already.

      1. I’ve encountered white bigots in the South *and* the Northeast. And the West. They’re out there, all right. None of them was an elected official that I know of.

        1. I was referring to institutional (private and public) bigotry. If we’re including the occasional individual being a racist asshole, New England takes the prize, by a long shot.

          1. Logged on just to point that out. There’s no racist like a racist from Boston.

    2. Sounds like you need to read some more Shikha Dalmia pieces. You apparently haven’t gotten the word yet that Jindal is a traitor to India, Hinduism, and all non-whites, and doesn’t count.

      1. India’s a quasi-socialist shithole. Its only redemptive qualities stem from the snippets of American capitalism its ridiculous government has permitted, wittingly or otherwise, to become implemented in recent years.

  12. “In a lawsuit brought against the State of Texas seeking to compel Texas to offer automobile license plates bearing the Confederate flag, the Supreme Court in dismissing the suit ruled just two weeks ago that the government enjoys the same freedom of speech as do persons. This is a novel and dangerous idea.”

    The argument from Breyer: “Just as Texas cannot force a private citizen to convey on his or her licence plate a message with which he or she does not agree, so the Sons of Confederate Veterans cannot force Texas to convey on its license plate a message with which the state does not agree.”

    This is the inevitable reality of any issue entailing government action, whether it’s naming bridges and highways or choosing whom to honor on war memorials (or which flags fly over said memorials). There is zero means of avoiding it as long as you have “public,” government-owned property or a weird hybrid between the state and private sector, like privately owned license plates that exist because of government fiat and at government approval. Naturally constrained states simply do not exist; you have to have state actors who are willing to bind their own hands, which is as rare as hens’ teeth.

    1. And saying that this is a “novel” idea is as mistaken as the belief that a particular, suspiciously silent deity gave you your rights. The intellectual construct of rights is a restatement of how self-aware human beings survive and thrive within a social structure of other persons, nothing more and nothing less. Trying to ground this very simple intuitive concept in an archaic religious structure that’s beyond bizarre to most moderns is a losing gamble if libertarianism is to have a non-Catholic intellectual future.

  13. I do not accept the premise that slave owners owned slaves because they hated the slaves they owned, or hated the race the slaves belonged too. This is akin to a farmer hating mules and delighting in purchasing a mule to plow a field–or “I really hate harvestors, hate those motherfuckers, so I’m going to buy one for my farm so I can get that wheat harvested.”

    1. I do not accept the premise that slave owners owned slaves because they hated the slaves they owned

      What about all the apparent hate-fucking?

    2. I don’t know if hate is the right word. As long as slaves were deferential and compliant, I’m sure masters did feel they had value, much like a mule. Some masters may have even felt fondness, and vice versa from slaves. Human relationships are complicated, especially in oppressive environments.

      But they certainly thought racist things that some might call hate, such as slaves were too stupid and ignorant to be free, that they were naturally inferior to white people and in need of subjugation, etc.

      If you mean hate as in seething rage, that was more present after the war as former slaves tried to vote, run for office, and open businesses. But if hate just means incredibly racist beliefs and dehumanizing treatment, then hate was rampant.

      1. Google: Buffalo Soldiers.
        (one of my favorite songs by Marley, then I googled it.)

  14. The remedy for hatred is reason. Hatred of persons symbols is always unreasonable. It takes a characteristic of birth (or manufacture) ? color, ethnicity, religion, design, for example ? and unreasonably ascribes mythological and unitary traits to it. Those ascribed traits usually appeal to the base fears and biases of the hater, feed his weaknesses, and provide him with a mental haven for his failings. Yet, reason and overwhelming opinion to the contrary can dilute hatred.

  15. What bothers me most about this whole ordeal is the prosecution of thought. The dim wits actions were despicable and those should be prosecuted. It doesn’t matter why he did them. A man should not be prosecuted more severely for his thoughts and beliefs, however misguided they may be.

  16. “It places government?an artificial creature based on temporary consensus and a monopoly of force?on the same plane as human beings, who are natural creatures with immortal souls endowed by our Creator with natural rights.” replace “government?an artificial creature based on temporary consensus and a monopoly of force?” with “business-an artificial creature made for the use of an individual or several individuals to maximize profit while minimizing risks-” and ask yourself about your article titled “Indiana, shooting themselves in the foot.” Take off those flip flops, judge, and put on some man boots.

  17. Judge, I find your complaint about putting artificial edifices on equal footing with humans interesting. You say this:

    “In the case of speech, it is especially dangerous to accord the natural rights of persons to the government because the state can use its monopoly of force to silence, drown out or intimidate the speech of any persons it hates and fears. When the state speaks, its expressions have an aura of legitimacy and can be used for narrow, sectarian, even hateful purposes.”

    Fair enough. How about corporations and dollars? Corporations are given the same rights as humans (remember Mitt?), and the Supreme Court ruled that dollars equal speech. Both are artificial edifices, and corporations can certainly create monopolies if allowed to and dollars certainly can intimidate for narrow purposes.

    I do note you don’t make complaints about either of those artificial edifices to which we give equal rights as humans. Just government?

    By the way, you also give two different readings as to the symbol of the Confederate flag. I note you omitted the most obvious…that it is a symbol of treason, which waging war against the United States certainly is.

  18. Judges are required by law to lie, but the truth is that lying about history exacerbates racial collectivism and breeds violence. The Nullification Crisis showed the Colonial South the Northern Mercantilist Metropolis controlled the courts, so anti-tax voters supported Van Buren’s liberty campaign but the two large looter parties dominated the elections just like today. They appealed to the courts and elections and failed both times to cut the excessively tax on imports. Then, appalled by the emergence of a Red Republican Communist Party after Britain’s Opium War drained America and Europe of investment capital, desperate southern politicians made the mistake of joining forces with brutes mainly interested in rape and slavery. It is to those brutes that the winners still point accusing fingers in their government schools. If we learn from history we will realize the Civil War was against taxation as in 1776, and that joining forces with Republicans–still a band of hateful, coercive looters–will only defeat the cause of freedom.

  19. The remedy for hatred is reason
    Judge Nap needs to be a Nazghul

  20. “I’d silence all government speech except that which is universally accepted (like the American flag), utterly innocuous (like the library is closed on Sundays), or absolutely necessary for governance (like speed limits on state roads).”

    No. Allowing the government to do things based upon popularity is NOT acceptable. This also applies to opinion, such as speed limits being necessary. I like ya Judge, but these kind of arguments, especially against inanimate objects, are antiprogressive, especially trying to fix the problem of evil individuals.

  21. Well, the purge continues. Anyone wanna take bets on how far this reaches before it gets to the tipping point? I’d bet Stone Mountain in Georgia gets blasted….

    Apple Yanks Games With Confederate Flags From App Store

    ‘Gone with the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag

    General Lee From “Dukes of Hazzard” Losing Its Confederate Flag

  22. This article would be much better without the references to God. Natural rights are a consequence of our nature as rational beings. Claiming that they are a gift from God implies that we believe in them on the basis of faith, so the enemies of rights can more easily claim that they are on the side of reason and science.

    Otherwise, excellent article. The Judge tells it like it is.

  23. Actually, belief in the rightness of slavery of Blacks has nothing to do with hatred. Seldom did any plantation owners hate their Black slaves. The Confederrate flag no more stood for hatred of Blacks than did Lincoln’s Union flag – they both symbolized societies in which slavery was legal.

  24. The government of the Confederacy died when the Civil War ended. No local, state, or federal Government has the right to continue to fly it. In my mind, the very act is treason. As for individuals, no restrictions, period. Although, in my opinion, they are idiots in the face of the grief it causes.

  25. It is neither novel nor dangerous to allow the government to express itself, and it does so all the time. It’s not just in announcing National Broccoli Day, but in the display of monuments, the explanation of the effects of regulation and in the whole project of public education and on and on.
    The right of the government to speak for itself was recognized in 2009 Summum case, and practically had been understood to exist before that. See, eg, Gettysburg dedication; gratuitous 1796 warning by chief executive against alliances, both worrisome under the Napolitano Rule.
    In your world, the government can say to drive no more than 55, but not reveal or promote a study showing why that act makes sense. That isn’t correct either as law or policy.

  26. It is neither novel nor dangerous to allow the government to express itself, and it does so all the time. It’s not just in announcing National Broccoli Day, but in the display of monuments, the explanation of the effects of regulation and in the whole project of public education and on and on.
    The right of the government to speak for itself was recognized in 2009 Summum case, and practically had been understood to exist before that. See, eg, Gettysburg dedication; gratuitous 1796 warning by chief executive against alliances, both worrisome under the Napolitano Rule.
    In your world, the government can say to drive no more than 55, but not reveal or promote a study showing why that act makes sense. That isn’t correct either as law or policy.

  27. Intolerance to the intolerant is still intolerance.

  28. A V-8 slap of Darwin’s law of survival to the forehead. I think this applies whether a deity gets involved or not. Adapt or die. doh

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.