Freedom of Speech Redux

In my last post, I discussed the Freedom of Speech, and if states should be bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The incident that sparked the discussion was the debate whether "truck nuts" are protected by free speech.

On the one hand, we have a tasteless and vulgar display that some states have chosen to outlaw. When they try to enforce their laws, there is public outcry, claiming censorship and infringement of First Amendment rights, even though the First Amendment was originally never supposed to apply to states, and was initially intended to ensure that individuals could disagree, vocally, with government without fear of retribution.

















On the other hand, we have a store that is selling a politically charged gag item that an individual found offensive. In response to the displeasure, the store pulled the mints. Two similar situations, two very different outcomes. In both cases an item was on display that was offensive. In the first case, it was actually illegal (or could be interpreted to be illegal) under state law. Regardless of legality, it was clearly tasteless and vulgar, and not really the type of expression intended for protection under the First Amendment. (Don't get me wrong, even though I personally find this display to be tasteless and vulgar, when I say it is not the type of expression intended for protection under the First Amendment, I don't mean that it shouldn't be protected on a Federal level.) This case receives attention as an infringement of First Amendment rights.

In the second case, it was an admittedly tasteless, albeit perfectly legal display that expressed displeasure with the government. The kind of speech that the First Amendment was actually intended to protect.