24 May 2005

Baby Steps Toward A Dangerous 'Hate Speech' Ban

(via LGF)

Check here.

  1. Why in the world would Congress need to resolve itself to oppose religious intolerance? Isn't that implicit in the whole 'separation of church and state' deal? Shouldn't any law restraining individuals from practicing any religion in any way be summarily tossed aside as unconstitutional?

  2. Per my post's title, even though as a resolution (as opposed to a bill) this would have no binding effect, it would be the first step in generating momentum towards a law against 'hate speech.' Even though a 'hate speech ban' should also be summarily tossed aside as a violation of the First Amendment, this is a dangerous step towards the Thought Police.

  3. Why are any specific religions mentioned at all in the text of the resolution? Shouldn't a resolution against religious intolerance automatically cover all religions?

There's no need for this resolution. May it die a quick and expeditious death.

No comments: