If that is truely a compelling state interest it can used to justify any encrochment on any of our constitutional rights. Including the freedom of speech vis a vis "provocative" speech.
Based on that then do my neighbors and myself feel we should not have a convicted child molester living in our community?
After all it is a public safety.
How about banning homosexual parades as ISIS could blow them up and that comes under safety.
We have judges today who don’t even care about the law and most of those are appointed by Democrats.
Can I say that I don’t ‘Feel’ comfortable with you saying certain things and thus be able to deprive you of free-speech?
Judge Daniel Anthony Manion dissented from the majority opinion. [..] Judge Manion’s reminder that when it comes to our fundamental rights, “The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them,” cannot be overemphasized.
I have written at length on FR about the difference between rights and privileges, and the two types of law that deal with them respectively, and how the latter is being swapped for the former. So far, FReepers haven't shown interest in exploring this line of thought.
The problem is that the Democrats are fascinated by it and obsessed with it. Every single time the Court hands down an outrage that mystifies everyone, or Congress rapes the Constitution and the screaming begins, the exact same damn thing is being done - administrative privileges are being swapped for constitutional rights.
Conservatives need to face reality - this is HOW the country is being destroyed. The longer it is ignored, the worse the damage will be. Is that simple, and that unavoidable. It can't be stopped until it is acknowledged.