Disagree as I may with the ACLU on any number of issues, I will always respect them for their dedication to the right of free speech and the right to assemble. Leaving aside the specifics of the event which happened recently in my hometown of Toledo, Ohio, I would like to make a plea for some respect for our rights as enumerated in the First Amendment.

Many posters have declared that society has a right to set minimum standards. In other words, the majority have the right to lord it over the minority. But society is itself simply a collection of individuals.

If we are to admit that all individuals are equal in their natural rights, a concept that is just about universally accepted in Western culture, then it becomes impossible to support societal standards imposed on a minority. For if we are equal, then I have no right to control your behavior anymore than you have the right to control mine. And if I don't have the right, and you don't have the right, then no one else does either. And if no one member of society has the right, then society itself cannot not have the right.

Now, on your own property you have the right to set whatever standards you want. And on another's property you must observe their standards or be forced out. Part of the whole problem with assembly comes from the fact that government owns so much land. If all land were privatized, as should be the case, any assembly must either use land that its members own or get permission from property owners to use theirs. When the government owns the land, things get contentious (You'll notice this recurring theme in history: when government gets involved, things get contentious. Perhaps it is government's monopoly power of coercion that frightens people).

However much I may wish to live in a completely private society, the fact is we are all burdened with government, and this makes any solutions involving that government imperfect. But to allow the people, or the government rather, to impose minimum standards is a very scary proposition indeed.

By what criteria will government determine the standards? Some suggest that offensive speech, or at least speech at offensive assemblies, should be outlawed. It truly stuns me that a person could be so obtuse as to make such a vague standard by which to curtail the rights of others. Offensive? I get offended by Michigan football. Perhaps the Wolverines should be banned from allowing their fans into games, because that offends me. Are they honestly promoting a society wherein the most sensitive of us determine the modes of conduct for the rest?

The defenders of censorship will no doubt jump in at this point and declare my example to be ridiculous. But that leads me to my central point: who is to determine what is ridiculous and what is not? And by what right do they determine it? To the Neo-Nazis marching in Toledo, and a more ridiculous group will not be found in my own opinion, their opinions are not ridiculous. There simply isn't an objective way to determine such a thing. Even if such an objective criterion could be found, we are still left with the self evident fact that in order for one person to have a right to control another's body and property, that person must be a superior being to the one being controlled. He must be in command not only of his own person, but also that of the one whom he seeks to control. It means that the one being controlled does not have the right to control of his own person. Why this would be so at the same time that the controller exercizes this very right is – how should I put it? – less than evident.

At the end of the day, censorship by the government simply means allowing some to subjectively impose their desires on others. It means giving government the power to stop some from expressing unpopular sentiments. Government most assuredly would love to have this power, but why would we want to give it?

It may start with so called hate speech today, but what will it be tomorrow? In what ways will the definition of hate speech be expanded to expand government power? Just look at what has happened to the definition of terrorist recently. All sorts of activities that governments do not like have been labeled as terrorist because it suits some politician or bureaucrat. How long will it be before hate speech is defined as something negative directed at government itself? Dissent, as Thomas Jefferson observed, is the highest form of patriotism. Any system where a majority can stifle the speech of the minority is a system where dissent is not tolerated. God protect us from a time when speech critical of one's own government is outlawed!

The people are fickle; rights are not. The people neither have the right to monitor speech outside each individual's own property, nor do they have the ability to monitor the government to make sure it does not abuse the power we give it. In order for censorship to work, we must give government the power to enforce it. Such power is ripe for abuse. Such power will be abused. Never in human history has such a large and diverse thing such as a society is been able to keep close tabs on its government. Government obfuscates, government misdirects, government manufactures crises, government uses incrementalism... in the end, government grabs more power. To cede it some today is to endure even greater abuse tomorrow.

It is both impractical and immoral to allow government to tell its citizens what they can say. The same government, supposedly by the people and for the people, that taxes away money from the people will then turn around and tell them what is appropriate speech? Government is supposed to be a servant, not a master. Let's not be foolish enough to support that. The Founding Fathers attempted to recognize our natural right to free speech in the very First Amendment to the Constitution. Please let's not throw this legacy away.