Brian
Well-Known Member
I understand the philosophical quandary you are presenting here, and certainly how it relates to the RCID situation, however, the first amendment is not there to suit the political whims of those in power at any given moment. In fact, in reading writings by the Founding Fathers, you could surmise that the first amendment was put into place to protect speech one disagrees with, not to prop up the speech those in power concur with.But what if everyone in the state of NJ (including every current and future state elected official) publicly hates the Ku Klux Klan? Is it your position that under those circumstances, the state of NJ must subsidize the Klan editorials forever?
EDIT: I keep asking this repeatedly because there are two defensible answers:
1. Yes, first amendment law mandates the state of NJ subsidize Ku Klux Klan editorials forever, or
2. No, that's absurd. If that were true, then a conservative legislature could grant an entity like the NRA unbelievable benefits and then if the legislature ever switched parties, the liberal legislature couldn't rescind it because everyone knows liberals hate the NRA. And the same thing would be true of a liberal legislature granting benefits to Planned Parenthood.
I believe the point you are trying to make is that if the ideological makeup of the Executive and Legislative branches of the New Jersey government somehow remains the same in perpetuity, there would never be a "good opportunity" to remove the tax exemption without appearing to be retaliating against the views of the publication. If that were the case, then the government would have to either: A.) Bite their tongue and let it be, which would be the "safest" option, or B.) Do what Gov. DeSantis and the legislature did in Florida, and eliminate the tax exemption, while letting the courts decide if it was a violation of the company's first amendment rights.
If "option B" is opted for, and the courts decide that it was unlawful of the state to remove the tax exemption because the evidence is clear that it was done because of the views the company espoused, then I suppose there's your answer.
Last edited: