Quote:
Originally posted by irateplatypus
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.
|
Your argument (which you present quite well, by the way) is based, in part, on the assumption that
offensive equals indecent . I would argue that it does not. F U G W may be offensive to some, but it is not indecent.
Your argument also makes no distinction between
types of speech . Political speech, artistic expression, commercial communication, etc... have each been traditionally subject to different standards and received different levels of constitutional protection.
Political speech -- no matter how unsophisticated -- is entitled to a considerable amount of protection with the courts generally choosing to err on the side of permitting questionable material. In this instance, I do not believe F U G W rises (or falls) to the level that should be prohibited.