Maybe their sign, that they purchased or created, made them happy! They have a right to happiness also and owe you no happiness, you have to create your own...by looking away
That's always the argument...look away...change the channel...etc., etc. This is always the defense of the people who use the language, not considering the rights of the people forced to endure it. Civil society doesn't have the prewarning or choice to avoid such situations, when they arrive on every street corner.
My right to peace is tantamount over someone else's sketchy "right" to push the envelope on the First Amendment. I shouldn't have to adjust my life (or my sense of peace) to allow someone else to trample on my right. And, it indicates someone else's DISREGARD of my rights and/or sensibilities to use said language in front of me, callously. If it isn't done in polite society, then why are we giving it a pass everywhere else? I don't understand why this is such a radical concept, difficult for others to grasp.
Having to defend this vigorously is disappointing to me. Obviously, this situation bothered enough people for the arrest of Cohen to happen in the first place, for the appellate to rule as they did, and for the SC to agree to hear it. Have you considered where this case came from in the first place, and the "connections" Cohen had to push (i.e. the dollars) the case higher and higher as he did? That should give anyone pause. I believe this was yet another subtle act of social subversion.
Maybe their sign, that they purchased or created, made them happy! They have a right to happiness also and owe you no happiness, you have to create your own...by looking away
That's always the argument...look away...change the channel...etc., etc. This is always the defense of the people who use the language, not considering the rights of the people forced to endure it. Civil society doesn't have the prewarning or choice to avoid such situations, when they arrive on every street corner.
My right to peace is tantamount over someone else's sketchy "right" to push the envelope on the First Amendment. I shouldn't have to adjust my life (or my sense of peace) to allow someone else to trample on my right. And, it indicates someone else's DISREGARD of my rights and/or sensibilities to use said language in front of me, callously. If it isn't done in polite society, then why are we giving it a pass everywhere else? I don't understand why this is such a radical concept, difficult for others to grasp.
Having to defend this vigorously is disappointing to me. Obviously, this situation bothered enough people for the arrest of Cohen to happen in the first place, for the appellate to rule as they did, and for the SC to agree to hear it. Have you considered where this case came from in the first place, and the "connections" Cohen had to push (i.e. the dollars) the case higher and higher as he did? That should give anyone pause. I believe this was yet another subtle act of social subversion.