tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3373614795198642436..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Forced Speech as Free SpeechAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73534186835651807222009-08-12T13:02:56.417-06:002009-08-12T13:02:56.417-06:00Yet, if you owned a bus in Des Moines, and a group...<i>Yet, if you owned a bus in Des Moines, and a group of atheists want you to deliver a message about people who do not believe in God not being alone, apparently, the person using force on others and telling them what to say are the defenders of free speech, at least the way some people seem to be thinking of the issue.</i><br /><br />Because the group of atheists ARE part owners of the (municipal) bus company.<br /><br />Change it to a privately-owned bus company and it no longer applies.<br /><br /><i>I do not agree with that point of view. </i><br /><br />Obviously. But you're also wrong.<br /><br /><a href="http://inatheistbus.org/wp-content/media/CMPLT.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the lawsuit filed over a similar situation in Bloomington, IL. Notice that the ACLU claims that the bus company violates the 14th and 1st amendments.<br /><br /><i>Governments have no right to freedom of speech. </i><br /><br />So "forcing" a municipal bus company to run an ad is not a violation of anyone's free speech rights; you just agreed that governments DON'T HAVE free speech rights.<br /><br /><i>It is not a practice that has a lot of merit.</i><br /><br />I say it has plenty of merit. The bus company was breaking the law; the proper response is to take them to court to obey the law.Brian Westleynoreply@blogger.com