|
sure, but that is no circumvention of the argument.
if you recognize that free speech is limited by standards of public decency, then this is simply an enforcement of those standards. the protester wasn't denied speaking his message, he was denied because he was using a method that was deemed offensive within the context of a public demonstration. if you allow for measures of enforced decency, then platteville has the authority to deny this man this way of delivering his message.
if you do not recognize that free speech has limits according to decency, then the logical extention of your argument is that all things are appropriate at all times. don't say that the most extreme cases (such as... a pornography shop next door to an elementary school) aren't applicable, because if you do you are enforcing your standards of what is publicly acceptable on someone who chooses to go farther than you would (just as this man is choosing to go farther than the platteville police would like).
so, you're forced to either accept that the police were within their right to take his sign down... or you maintain that all speech is appropriate everywhere.
if choose to not accept the first while denying the second, then you're effectively putting your measure of what is acceptable over everyone elses... something you're displaying as something negative about the situation you cited.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|