A majority opinion needs no protection because it is under agreement, but a minority is given the right of protection even if what the group has to say is considered horrendous by societies’ standards. The author uses the First Amendment and the claim of the 8 justices that voted in favor of the church as their evidence. Considering these are both directly related to the national government, the evidence should be considerably reliable. From an emotionally swayed opinion, the outcome of the courts decision would be considered a chilling message, as stated by the VMI. However, the author has looked at the case from a legal standpoint.
The United States government has set out to protect all individuals, no matter the opinion. The author has written from the side of the justices, in protecting minorities and their opinions. If the justices had gone in favor of the father, what other minorities would they have to vote against. By voting in favor of the church, the justices are protecting not just the church, but any other minority that has something vulgar to say. The author sees that the picketers followed all rules and laws in their protest. To finalize the editorial the author states that the best thing to do in the case of a controversial minority is to give them their rights, and then simply ignore them. From a legal and emotional standpoint, this is the best thing to do. We all have rights. Click here to see the full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment