[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/29/03 11:57AM wrote:
I wonder if others are concerned, as I am, about the government serving as the
agent of individuals' preferences and prejudices about speech they like and dislike. .
. . I understand that the government does serve as the agent of individual rights and
interests -- e.g. the right to property (trespass), to quietude (noise ordinances, et
al) . . . . But it is
nevertheless a troubling posture for government to be in, especially if
government's purpose would be to facilitate people's "right" not to hear . . . .
Might the government in this case be protecting individuals against something that is
akin to trespass? That is, is an unwelcome telephone call significantly different
from the caller walking into your vestibule to convey his/her speech message? I
realize there are differences (eg, a physical intrusion may raise concerns about
physical safety), but if the argument is that, because it is speech, it is
inappropriate for the government to protect you against it even in the privacy of your
home, it's not clear why trespass-like considerations shouldn't count on the side of
government regulation.
