Posted on 09/03/2013 9:43:19 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Here's a question: What is the true test of one's commitment to freedom of expression? Is it when one permits others to express ideas with which he agrees? Or is it when he permits others to express ideas he finds deeply offensive? I'm betting that most people would wisely answer that it's the latter, and I'd agree. How about this question: What is the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association? Is it when people permit others to freely associate in ways of which they approve? Or is it when they permit others to freely associate in ways they deem despicable? I'm sure that might be a considerable dispute about freedom of association compared with the one over freedom of expression. To be for freedom in either case requires that one be brave enough to accept the fact that some people will make offensive expressions and associate in offensive ways. Let's explore this with an example from the past. In 1958, Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, two Virginia residents, traveled to Washington, D.C., to marry. Upon their return to Virginia, they were charged with and found guilty of violation of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, held that laws banning interracial marriages violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. The couple's conviction was reversed. Thus, Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws not only violated the U.S. Constitution but also violated the basic human right of freedom of association. Now let's ask ourselves: Would Virginia's laws have been more acceptable if, instead of banning interracial marriages, they had mandated interracial marriages? Any decent person would find such a law just as offensive — and for the same reason: It would violate freedom of association.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
No, it is when can voice disapproval of anothers expression when everyone else has been brainwashed into thinking the abnormal expression of another is normal.
When one is chided for not following the liberal line but they remain strong to their principles that is indeed truly expressing oneself.
The ones who have onde bemoned being bullied have themselves become the bullies ever since they crossed the line from earned confidence to gross abject pride, and pride cometh before the fall.
Thanks for posting Walter Williams, but try to remember that paragraphs are your friend (and evrybody else’s).
True, but the “principle” he cites here would equally prevent laws against polygamy and incestuous or gay marriage.
So I’m not sure it’s one conservatives want to embrace whole-heartedly.
FREEDOM is just a talking point to progressives..
They will talk conservatives to death..
They had no love for logic, law, and ethics..
ONLY the HIVE is pertinent.. only the collective is meaningful..
They will give up powerful ONLY when it’s pried from their cold dead hands..
Conservatives are nieve and gullable.. with no head for tactics..
Saul Alinsky saw this.. wrote “Rules for Radicals”...
And cut conservatives off at the knees..
The republican party has been and is dead Now as “Bernie” in “Weekend at Bernies”..
Soon the cigar will go out..
As long as no one was required to recognize it, why not?
Although, I could make a case for only straight, 1m/1/w marriages. Sometimes liberty becomes license, and that’s not good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.