Still land of the free?

July 3, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tomorrow is the Fourth of July, a celebration of America’s birthday and all the freedoms we have as American citizens. The U.S. is the “land of the free,” but it sometimes feels like it’s slowly turning into the “land of the free – in certain circumstances.”

We are afforded certain unalienable rights by our Constitution, but is one of them the right to smoke? Smoking bans are happening across the country. Depending on where you live in Indiana, you may not be able to smoke in any public building or smoking bans may be limited to those buildings that admit minors. What justification does the government have now for limiting people’s rights to smoke a cigarette when 50 years ago, people could smoke in the workplace, on television, and just about anywhere they pleased.

States have passed laws telling us that we can’t use our cell phones when driving or we are only allowed to use a hands-free set. States argue it’s for the safety of everyone on the roads, but then why aren’t there laws banning applying makeup while driving, eating while driving, or singing at the top of your lungs to your radio? Those things can be distracting to drivers as well.

Some laws may have good intentions – to protect minors from obscene material – but are overbroad, such as the law struck down Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. House Enrolled Act 1042 wanted to protect kids and communities from materials that are considered obscene, but the law actually violated First Amendment rights, according to the judge on the case.

Then there are the people who protest Victoria’s Secret stores’ displays of mannequins wearing lingerie. The protesters believe these scantily clad plastic figures erode the morals of society and negatively influence their children. Instead of either avoiding the store when they are with their children, explaining that the mannequins are dressed the way they are because it’s a lingerie store, or actually discussing the birds and the bees with their children, the protesters want the government to step in and cover up the mannequins.

How far is too far for the government to step in and begin to micromanage Americans’ lives? Are we still the land of the free or are we less free than we were when the country was founded?

The IL staff will be out of the office for the Fourth of July, but we’ll be back Monday with a new post.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT