Do Governments Have The Obligation To Present An Unbiased Platform?
Several states such as Arizona, Tennessee, and South Carolina have allowed choose life license plate and Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are arguing against them. Planned Parenthood which was once more accurately known as the Birth Control League has in the past stated they are not pro abortion but are pro choice. So if they are not lying they should have no problem with a license plate that encourages the choice of life.
The ACLU complaint is that because there is a pro-life plate and not a pro-choice plate that it's a restriction of free speech. The ACLU argument is unsound because the wording does not advocate the pro-life position of illegalizing abortion. Instead it advocates the pro-choice position and urges women to make a choice of not killing their own children. I have read where Hillary Clinton advocate this very ideal and she is certainly not pro-life as will see in the following cite from one of her speeches at clinton.senate,gov.
The ACLU argument is also misapplied in that while the government is restricted from making laws that restrict freedom of speech it certainly does not restrict the administration of a state from establishing a particular platform. The government does not have to be unbiased upon political issues despite the ACLU's claim to the contrary.
In fact in the United States we vote on them because they are biased and we expect them to advance our biased agenda. I do like the ideal that the ACLU advances that the government has the duty to provide an unbiased media for free speech but I do not see where the Constitution of the United States mandates that it does. Perhaps the legislation of the effected states were seek to put it into law if the ACLU feel like going by the democratic process, instead of the dictatorial process they are so fond of, and lobbying for it.
The ACLU complaint is that because there is a pro-life plate and not a pro-choice plate that it's a restriction of free speech. The ACLU argument is unsound because the wording does not advocate the pro-life position of illegalizing abortion. Instead it advocates the pro-choice position and urges women to make a choice of not killing their own children. I have read where Hillary Clinton advocate this very ideal and she is certainly not pro-life as will see in the following cite from one of her speeches at clinton.senate,gov.
This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.
The ACLU argument is also misapplied in that while the government is restricted from making laws that restrict freedom of speech it certainly does not restrict the administration of a state from establishing a particular platform. The government does not have to be unbiased upon political issues despite the ACLU's claim to the contrary.
In fact in the United States we vote on them because they are biased and we expect them to advance our biased agenda. I do like the ideal that the ACLU advances that the government has the duty to provide an unbiased media for free speech but I do not see where the Constitution of the United States mandates that it does. Perhaps the legislation of the effected states were seek to put it into law if the ACLU feel like going by the democratic process, instead of the dictatorial process they are so fond of, and lobbying for it.
posted by Kerwin | 6:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home