A Fine Example

This morning, I read an article on NYTimes.com that really exemplifies a dichotomy between personal beliefs and the Constitution. I don't normally get political or address much social issues here. In fact, it seems I don't address much of anything of late. I get so much I want to write about that I'm frozen into non-activity, which is much like the rest of my life, it seems. Perhaps that's a problem.

Meanwhile, back at the article front of the state of disarray of Jack's brain...

The gist of the article is that Verizon Wireless has so far refused to carry text messages from NARAL, a pro-death "abortion rights" group, on the grounds that it

does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”

I'm pretty much against abortion — except in the very small number of "special cases" of i*cest, r*pe, and endangering the mother's life; in no case do I think it should be the automatic "Solution" (what is the problem when this is the solution?). Note: I'm not against anyone who has had an abortion for whatever reason, nor do I advocate violence against the doctors who perform them or the clinics where they are performed. People will be won over by truth and love, not violence and dogma and demonstration. The "other" side also loses by attrition &mdash more abortions = fewer people to be raised in that environment and continue raising the banner (see Idiocracy for an example of this.

But what is controversial or unsavory? Who determines this? Looney Tunes are controversial for some people because the cartoons advocate violence toward others and instill a sense that hurting someone doesn't really hurt. These people want big fluffy creatures sitting around doing nothing as what children should watch. We have demonstrated controversy; therefore, Verizon Wireless will not carry any messages promoting Looney Tunes. As a result and via its own policy, Verizon Wireless cannot allow anything against Looney Tunes to be sent, either, as that would be pushing a differen agenda.

As distasteful as it is, and as much as I would like that movement to be thwarted completely, the free speech guaranteed to us in the Constitution (not prevailing wisdom from leading nations, and not by fiat of the Court) really takes precedence here. I hate what they're promoting, but I will defend their right to promote it. Only when it is determined and established by the government as detrimental (like crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater) should it then be restricted speech.