Thoughts on what Rand Paul said (repeatedly)
Okay, the go-backs are in the public discourse and the media are pretending they have something legitimate to say. This is in response to the ABC News story. More later.
Nobody said Paul wanted to repeal the Civil RIghts Act. Nobody said that he would have been against it (although some have asked him, which is a perfectly reasonable kind of thing to ask someone running for Senate). Nobody said he was racist. Nobody said he was advocating violence.
By arguing against these straw men, he is avoiding the real issue, which is that he thinks Woolworths' ugly action in barring people from public accommodation was protected speech.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly (e.g. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 1968), that the kind of action Paul calls "free speech" is NOT speech. Something like refusing to serve members of a particular ethnic group is an action. It isn't posting the "whites only" sign, it's the enforcement of it (whether violent or not. Historically, it's been violent, but there are actions that are nonviolent. Actions like putting a plate of food in front of one person, and a plate of garbage in front of another. They are still actions) that is illegal.
I will defend to the death anyone's right to say offensive things (although I will be called a "PC censor" if I use my free speech to criticize the speaker anyway-- ironic, isn't it, that the "politically correct" are almost invariably the ones that get shouted down), but Paul is on record as repeatedly saying that bigots should be allowed to put their words into practice, and practice is something the government has the right to regulate.
Paul is on the record (not just once, but on several occasions, spanning 7 years or more-- look it up) as against the enforceability of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the ADA. He is consistently on the wrong side of history, and in disagreement with decades-old settled law. He has the right to say it, but he's a candidate for Senate, so I think that his views on a piece of legislation are a legitimate topic of discussion, don't you?
I will talk about what Paul's appeal says about the GO[back]Party later, but for now, let me just say that I don't think someone still on the wrong side of a debate we settled in the middle of the last century is the right choice to help America meet the challenges of this one.
Nobody said Paul wanted to repeal the Civil RIghts Act. Nobody said that he would have been against it (although some have asked him, which is a perfectly reasonable kind of thing to ask someone running for Senate). Nobody said he was racist. Nobody said he was advocating violence.
By arguing against these straw men, he is avoiding the real issue, which is that he thinks Woolworths' ugly action in barring people from public accommodation was protected speech.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly (e.g. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 1968), that the kind of action Paul calls "free speech" is NOT speech. Something like refusing to serve members of a particular ethnic group is an action. It isn't posting the "whites only" sign, it's the enforcement of it (whether violent or not. Historically, it's been violent, but there are actions that are nonviolent. Actions like putting a plate of food in front of one person, and a plate of garbage in front of another. They are still actions) that is illegal.
I will defend to the death anyone's right to say offensive things (although I will be called a "PC censor" if I use my free speech to criticize the speaker anyway-- ironic, isn't it, that the "politically correct" are almost invariably the ones that get shouted down), but Paul is on record as repeatedly saying that bigots should be allowed to put their words into practice, and practice is something the government has the right to regulate.
Paul is on the record (not just once, but on several occasions, spanning 7 years or more-- look it up) as against the enforceability of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the ADA. He is consistently on the wrong side of history, and in disagreement with decades-old settled law. He has the right to say it, but he's a candidate for Senate, so I think that his views on a piece of legislation are a legitimate topic of discussion, don't you?
I will talk about what Paul's appeal says about the GO[back]Party later, but for now, let me just say that I don't think someone still on the wrong side of a debate we settled in the middle of the last century is the right choice to help America meet the challenges of this one.