If you took me to be saying what JH is advocating is a step on a slippery slope to lawless government, no, you misunderstand. I'm saying what JH is advocating is lawless government.
The current SCOTUS and the former Trump Administration exposed how much our system of governance depends on the adherence to tradition and precedence and that coloring outside the lines, while not prohibited, should be kept to only cases of absolute necessity.
Absolutely. So why the heck don't you grasp that the government ordering a citizen to do creative writing or artwork promoting a cause she opposes is very much a case of "coloring outside the lines"? When has a SCOTUS ever upheld such a requirement? When has the government even tried to impose such a requirement until the recent era of progressive-captured regulatory bodies? What tradition and precedent for such a demand do you see? Tradition and precedent has gone heavily against making citizens speak out for causes they oppose even when it's just mechanical recital of government-supplied text -- see the Pledge of Allegiance cases.
"Lawless Government" is a bizarre term for you to use in an assumption made by another that all people should have access to all rights and privileges.
In the first place, you are begging the question. Whether a right to other people's creativity exists in the first place is one of the main points in dispute; don't just casually include that in the set of "all rights and privileges" without making a case for it.
And in the second place, I was already perfectly clear upthread that what I called "lawless government" is your argument
This whole, "But it is expression...." is such a hyper technical excuse
and not your contention that all people should have access to a right to other people's creativity. If you propose to let the government infringe the citizens' current right to free expression in order to give all people access to this alleged right you believe they have,
by amending the Constitution to partially repeal the First Amendment, then that would make what you're asking the government to do
legal, so you'd be advocating lawful government. But I do not take you to be advocating a constitutional amendment. People who complain about the government paying heed to technicalities rarely are. I took you to be proposing that the government should just ignore the fact that "But it is expression....", on account of it being such a hyper technical excuse. Is that not what you're advocating? You appear to be advocating the government
do something illegal.
The government ignoring technicalities when they become obstacles to officials getting the outcomes they want is
precisely what the phrase "lawless government" refers to.
Federal District Judge William Mehrtens has dramatically illustrated how seriously the Nixon Administration's disregard for constitutional restraints has interfered with the orderly process of law enforcement. In eleven Federal gambling, narcotics and bribery cases before Judge Mehrtens in Miami, the evidence of guilt contained in wiretaps submitted by the Justice Department was “overwhelming.” Yet the judge found himself compelled “with the greatest reluctance” to suppress that evidence because the taps had been illegally authorized. ...
...By reluctantly taking this course, Judge Mehrtens underscored the danger of permitting the Government to fight lawlessness with lawlessness.
Ed maintains recent decision by Fed Dist Judge Mehrtens, which disallowed use of wiretap evidence submitted by Justice Dept to bolster its narcotics indictments, demonstrates 'dramatically' how seriously Nixon Adm's disregard for const restraints has interfered with the orderly process of law...
www.nytimes.com
Did you think it means a government that obeys no laws? Would you go back in time and explain to Judge Mehrtens that suppressing evidence from illegal wiretaps is a hyper technical excuse for letting criminals off on a technicality, and illegal wiretaps aren't lawless government because Richard Nixon never held up a Seven-Eleven?
The Government's role would only be in as far to ensure said access. Instead, it seems that you appear to be asserting that it is government over-reach to ensure equal protection
Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that Smith had a real live Jane Doe would-be client. How do you figure the government requiring Smith to write up a claim that one of Doe's unscientific opinions is correct is "ensuring equal protection"? Is the government also going to require
Doe to write up a claim that one of
Smith's unscientific opinions is correct? Are you advocating that they also require Doe to?
I am asserting that it is government overreach to ensure
unequal protection, by protecting Doe's First Amendment rights while brushing aside Smith's First Amendment rights as such a hyper technical excuse.
You try to smear the entire objection as calling it a slippery slope, but you and others have failed to demonstrate how the very arguments used in the web site or cake cases can't apply to race.
Come again? In the first place, it wan't a smear -- your argument that I called a slippery slope was absolutely a slippery slope.
And in the second place, no, I didn't call "the entire objection" a slippery slope. What I called a slippery slope was specifically "Your argument is hedging towards publicly acceptable Jim Crow...". What, do you think the awful thing about the Jim Crow era was that so many white artists and writers weren't creatively celebrating what black people wanted celebrated? It's ridiculous. The very arguments used in the web site or cake cases can't bring back the Jim Crow era because there's no freedom of drinking fountains and freedom of sandwich shops and freedom of motel rooms in the Constitution. This isn't rocket science. When you accused Toni of "hedging towards publicly acceptable Jim Crow",
that was the smear.
So if you're up for presenting your objection to Toni's and my position without calling up the specter of Jim Crow, instead using fact-based criticisms that don't sweep under the rug the fact that the US legal system takes seriously the "hyper technical" distinction between expression and non-expression, knock yourself out, and you won't be making a slippery slope argument.