You need your stars, even killers have prestige.

Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

However:

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire states that the addressing any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place or calling him by any offensive or derisive name is not protected by the 1st amendment. 

Chaplinsky only restricts freedom of speech because it is understood that “addressing any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any person” is likely to cause “a breach of peace.”  Still, it is a restriction.

Unlike the Supreme Court, I share Hugo Black’s opinion that when the Constitution says “no law” it means “no law.”  Therefore, I will not advocate any restriction of free speech.  In fact, I find it insulting that Open Diary even offers options like “Favorites Only” and “Signed Notes Only.”  And while it would certainly be easier to just set my diary to one of those insulting settings to get away from my creepliy-obsessed, childish (yet oddly flattering) anonymous noter, I understand that in this country free speech is not a priviledge, but rather a right.

However, it must be understood that if a “breach of peace” does in fact occur, years of precedent dictate that freedom of speech is not as unconditional as some would believe.

John Locke states that in order for a civil government (like the government of the United States) to succeed, man must be in full possession of reason.  This is because democracy involves the consent of the people.  When people govern themselves, the laws are (in theory) made for the public good.  If it comes to light that laws that protect things like free speech, for example, are not serving the public good, it is entirely possible that such laws will be changed.

Of course, anonymous noter, I don’t expect you to have the mental capacity to fully comprehend the point of this government tutorial.  In fact, later, when I read your reply, which will read like a poorly written 3rd grade grammar worksheet and will have about as much substance, I’ll chuckle to myself and thank God that I will never have to meet you and see the frighteningly vacant look in your eyes that speaks more eloquently than you ever could of the lack of intelligence that you seem to be afflicted with.

And with that, I close this little argument.  By all means, continue to leaves notes, I always need a laugh.  This is the last time I’ll dignify your ignorance with a reply.  You’ve proven you aren’t a worthy opponent, and I waste my words trying to win a debate that you frankly aren’t smart enough to start.