4 ms·
Your logic is sound, but the calculus changes when dealing with matters that touch on rights and freedoms. In all likelihood, these closures are a direct viola
by jeffdavis 6y ago
Your logic is sound, but the calculus changes when dealing with matters that touch on rights and freedoms.
In all likelihood, these closures are a direct violation of the First Amendment. I think people are tolerant of these restrictions for limited periods of time, but when the emergency drags on forever and becomes increasingly arbitrary, it starts to lose credibility.
Politicians have limited power, even during an emergency. And especially when the emergency looks like it's going to be in effect to some degree for maybe a year.
Remember also that the people who go out are doing so by choice. And most people mostly choose to stay home. It's not clear that we need a big enforcement hammer here.
- contravariant 6y agoThis isn't any more a violation of the First Amendment than making it illegal to sow panic by shouting "Fire!". Being pretty sure it's not going to end too badly isn't sufficient reason to ignore either restrictions.
- jeffdavis 6y agoEven if it's not a violation of the First Amendment, it's close enough that it flips the responsibility. Now the government needs to continually convince people that it's not a violation. America is about freedom and limited government. That means some policy options are off the table or treated with extreme skepticism.
- contravariant 6y agoIt's a violation of basic freedoms, that's true, but it's not one without reason (hence my example). I do agree with you that measures like this require constant justification, as would be the case in any democracy. I do not think that flouting these measures arbitrarily is the best way to achieve this.