So in debate (and probably real life, but all debate IS life) there is the concept of a line. You've hopefully heard the expression "where do you draw the line?" Now there are two kinds of lines. Gray lines and bright line. A gray line is sort of a general area. A bright line is a solid definition. For example, take the three point line in basketball. As it stands, it is a bright line. Either you crossed it or you didn't. No room for interpretation. Now imagine if instead the rule said that a player had to be standing close to the three point line. That would be a gray line. Now the problem with that is, at first players might get away with having their heels on the line. After a few months, they could take their heels off the line. Without a bright line, refs could never say you weren't off the three point line, because you could say, well, just a half inch behind me is where you gave the last player three points, and I'm barely farther.
Now to avoid the fallacy of analogy, I'll point out where gray lines are in real life, and why they are a problem. Supreme court decisions always, with few exceptions have gray lines. Defining obscenity is often one they'll use. Take the current standing definition of obscenity from Miller v. California, in 1973:
- the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
- the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
It may not be obvious, because the definition seems harmless, but the problem with any gray line is that it can be stretched. To be honest, It would be very easy (and probably not unlikely in the next decade) to take a snapshot from a porno, and paint it very large on a wall in a public place with lots of children, but not only that, but it would be very easy to find someone who would be quite serious. Now ask yourself, is that right? how about child bestiality (sorry, but I had to go so far that no one will condone it) How about a picture taken in secret of you in the shower? Dogs being shot by Micheal Vick? (If thats not far enough for you, figure out what would be, and insert it here) (get the picture)
So I think my point is, any gray line will never have a bright line boundary, therefore it will always be stretched. And if it can be stretched just a little, theres no reason it can't be stretched a lot, or all the way. (And it could go the other way. I mean if the 'average' person was a radical Muslim, and believed in burkas etc... where would it stop? It could go farther)
Now the reason for gray lines is simple. The point of the courts is to decide on case by case basis, but the purpose of the Supreme Court is to lay down the rules. And they have to allow for people's sensibilities to shift in the future. Yeah. Modern art can be somewhat obscene. But its still art. Wouldn't have passed in the fifties, but it would now. Unfortunately, the way this country is set up, it only takes a few people with radically different sensibilities to impose that on the rest of the community (state, country, world, whatever). So one person who sees it as a political act to burn a flag means that ANYONE who wants to burn a flag, even if its not political, can. So instead of allowing the nation leeway to move within its sensibilities, the supreme court basically makes it an open field (or in other cases, shuts it down completely).
So now that we've established that any gray line to solve a problem is completely useless, lets talk more about bright lines. Any bright line (or two bright lines marking the boundary of whats acceptable) have the problem that they won't move with societies changed perceptions of issues. To set any bright line standard will always be a mistake. Because it leaves no room for movement. And without movement the standard will fall, hard and fast. Theres absolutely no reason homosexual couples shouldn't be able to inherit from one another when one dies. But how can you possible say that without allowing more rights? The only 'bright line' you can draw is to not draw one at all. As soon as you allow even the smallest amount of nudity in art, how can you legitimately stop the rest? The only thing you can safely do is allow anything, only then can society's pointless aversion to sexual depictions be removed (like in Brave New World)
So the conclusion I hope I've brought you too is that no bright lines can be drawn. The only solution is to be absolute in your definitions. So, I know the above argument was kind of weak, but if you grasp the concept, think about and come to your own conclusion. Mine is that society is always changing and that any bright line you draw will become a problem. So when you say you believe in freedom, mean it. If you truly believe in freedom you think homosexual marriage is absolutely fine. You believe that if I want to carry a loaded gun around with me on the streets (not necessarily private property,) concealed or not, I have that right. I just don't have the right to use it. The only time you believe freedoms might be restricted is when they interfere with other's (smoking, anti terrorism, but both only to a degree). If you call yourself a liberal, consider what the work truly means: Freedom. and think about what you would do if you were in Washington, and then consider if it maximizes freedom, in all its forms.
