Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (96321)	11/16/2008 2:01:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541919

The freedom to say ugly stuff is still freedom of speech. The freedom to discriminate is still freedom of association. When we constrain them, we are constraining freedom. What's the problem with acknowledging that, with calling a spade a "spade"? It seems to me intellectually dishonest to deny the obvious. Yeah, there is some "bad" speech and some "bad" association. We choose to permit the former and to constrain the latter. We have good reasons for doing so. Seems to me their intent was just the opposite, especially when you consider the addition of the equal protection clause in the amendments. Like I said, we choose to constrain one. The founding fathers gave us a tool to do that. We have traded off one right against another. That doesn't change the concept of freedom of association, only the application. What you're arguing sounds to me like refusing to acknowledge that Palin is an attractive woman because it might look like you're endorsing her for VP. We can acknowledge that some freedom of association was lost in the cause of equal protection without undermining equal protection.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (96321)	11/17/2008 7:59:42 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541919

That's a curious definition of "freedom of association", being the right to ban certain classes of people from participation in social, business, educational or healthcare institutions. Banning others from participation in "social business, educational, and/or healthcare institutions" in general, wouldn't be freedom of association. Not letting them participate in your own institution would be freedom of association, and not letting people make such a ban would be restricting or impinging on their freedom of association. There's a big difference between "you can't participate in business" and "I'm not going to hire you"; or between "you can't get an education", and "I won't teach you".