A Compromise Is Defined As An Agreement Or Settlement Of A Dispute

1657 Words7 Pages
A compromise is defined as an agreement or settlement of a dispute reached by two or more parties making concessions. The first amendment case law we reviewed in class seems to reflect a great deal of compromise, but not in a positive manner. It was troubling, paradoxical and even cruel. The rulings appeared to disregard ideals of human decency and yet, conversely, are said to set up a positive framework for future minority groups. In Hurley, LGBTQ discrimination is condoned under the guise of speaker autonomy. In Dale, LGBTQ exclusion is justified under expressive association. Both example the dangers of coming to a parley over human rights issues with a traditionalist, polarized group. That is to say, in making the weaker, singled out…show more content…
Another counter argument may be Milton’s theory of the marketplace of ideas. That is to say “good” ideas usually dominate “bad” ones over time. This would support first amendment cases in the sense that content should not be censored. Yet, it seems that this attitude leads to a social air of accepting LGBTQ discrimination under a theoretical guise without taking notice of the effects on the individual. Thus, I think there needs to be some aspect of an omniscient perspective that examines wether a decision further subjugates a historically battered group. Starting off with Hurley, first amendment protections were applied because parades were “public dramas of social relations” and could “carry subjects of communication and consideration”. I agree with this statement but find it vexing that the definition of expression has become so stretched that it overwhelms the issue at hand in order to suit the defendant’s claim. I see it as nothing more than a clever way to grant more basis and protections by making it an issue of free speech and therefore, of speaker autonomy. That is to say, negating an overarching perspective on impact, the court’s compliance with the exclusion of minority groups to follow a “central coherency” really seems to contradict previous cases like United States v. Virginia. It is merely because Virginia is an issue of sex based equal protection and the other two are first amendment rights issues that the result
Open Document