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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT