|
How about we add licensing restrictions to the 1st Ammendment, too? To use your paradigm:
- Class A: At age 16, after 10 years of classes on the English language, and at least one mandatory oration class, you are allowed to talk to your friends in groups no larger than 5, and cannot discuss politics (as you're no old enough to vote anyhow) or anything that would be considered Rated R in a movie (again, you're not yet 18).
- Class B: At age 18, with completion of an additional debate class and a federal background check you can now speak in groups of up to 8 and discuss politics (local only; no federal issues may be introduced to the discussion), the ramifications vs. pleasure of tobacco use, your experiences in filling out your Selective Service card, and driving/automotive topics (experience discussions limited to those conducted at or under the legal speed limit)
- Class C: At age 21, with proof of at least one semester of study in philosophy and/or logic, you may address groups of up to 15 people (any number over that could potentially create a large scale mob, which is dangerous to the general population) on topics that include the federal government (topics restricted to issues that directly affect you or the local area), the use of alcohol, and regional concerns. At no time may topics that may be considered offensive or disrupting to anyone in the group, or to anyone that may potentially overhear the group's discussion, be verbalized for fear of collateral damage. If discussions become heated, all parties must immediately disperse for a 3-day "cooling off" period, and all group members must attend a one day anger management counseling session to ensure future discussions do not escalate into violence.
Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?
|