LA Times - Now it is faced with another controversial test of free speech. The question is: Does the Constitution ? boobies?...In the five years since the Keep A Breast Foundation began its campaign to make young people aware of breast cancer, it has sold more than 2 million rubber wristbands inscribed with the words: "I ? boobies." It would appear that many of those wristbands have turned up where there is maximum potential for adolescent interest in boobies: middle school...Some students and teachers had found them offensive, and some boys had been overly enthusiastic about them, telling girls, "I love your boobies." That development, in turn, has incited the wrath of a group of adults that decidedly does not love the wristbands: middle-school administrators.
You're god damn right the Constitution was set up to protect speech like this. Kids in middle schools are interested in boobies? There's a shock. Everyone knows the 6th and 7th grade is when girls stop having cooties, its just science, so it's only natural that these 10-13 year old's would wear bracelets to celebrate this scientific break through.
And on a more serious note, Yes, I'd rather our constitution protect fluky cases of free speech such as that than stick to a hard line view that some Supreme Court Justices have recently expressed preference for;
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: said in a recently published interview that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation."Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex," Scalia told California Lawyer. "The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."
Interesting, that from one of the 9 most powerful Judges in our American, conveniently appointed for life, I might add. FYI ladies, he's looking right at you. Apparently because our founding fathers didn't believe discriminating against woman was a big deal, nor should we today.
Here's my big problem with these "Constitutional Conservatives." If we were supposed to follow the constitution by the exact words it was written, we'd still have slavery, and woman couldn't vote. We'd also live in a world of limited interstate commerce, no national drug laws, and presumably we'd all be getting around by horse and buggy. We'd just be stuck in the past adhering to hard set laws and rules set forth by a bunch of whig wearing old men from hundreds of years ago...we'd be Iran, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia. Countries governed by unbending rules and laws set forth ages ago. We'd be stuck in the stone age with these backwards ass countries. The fact is that our wise old Bastard Founding Fathers left open the ability to ammend and adapt our governing law because they understood society will change and there will be situations they could have never foreseen. People who want to live in a simpler, more archaic time should move to Amish Country or go live on an FLDS reservation. You'll get all the simplicity you could ever want.
How lunatics, and yes Justice Antonin Scalia is a lunatic, fancy title aside, can be appointed to such a prestigious and powerful post is beyond my understanding. You may not like the ways of modern life, but any clear headed thinker can see that most change is all in the name of progress. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but freedom of change is never done in hopes of bringing about the self depreciation for the rest of society, unlike expressing ideas that woman, gays, and transgenders aren't constitutionally protected.
