The satirist H.L. Mencken once quipped that “the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” And so it is with Tennessee’s new policy of stiffer fines for “offensive” bumper stickers. On the surface, this policy sounds like a really good idea. After all, who wants to pull up behind a car adorned with foul language or graphics on its bumper or tailgate. Unfortunately, as with so many laws, this one sets a dangerous precedent.

Like many such laws regulating bad, but peaceful, behavior, the proponents of this law justify it as needed to protect children. This statement automatically puts opponents of the law on the defensive: “if you don’t support this, you must hate children.” First things first, let us dispense with this juvenile sophistry and have an honest discussion about how the public policy decisions we make shape the world which our children will inherit.

What is offensive or obscene to one person, may not be offensive or obscene to other people. Some will claim that there is some amorphous “community standard” that determines what is acceptable speech and what is not. This argument is a simply an excuse for a majority of people (or a vocal minority) to impose their beliefs, values, and tastes onto other individuals. Society is not a homogeneous monolith. Society consists of various individual with disparate morals, tastes, and values.

In a free society, so long as an individual does not use violence or coercion to express himself, his right to free expression must be sacrosanct. Putting a bumper sticker on one’s car is not an act of violence or coercion. It is not as if, as the bill’s co-sponsor State Representative Gary Moore (D-Joelton) says, one is “imposing one’s view on other people.” Such a statement implies that others are being forced to read an offensive bumper sticker. No one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and making him look at the bumper sticker.

When considering legislation, we should think not only about the stated goal of said legislation, but also about how it could be abused. In other words, we should consider the unintended consequences.

For example, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the State may only exercise its power of eminent domain for “public use.” That is, it may only take property to be used to build things like roads, government buildings, etc. Over the years, the term “public use” has morphed into the much less specific “public purpose.” Now, the State claims the authority to take your property if it benefits the “public” in any way. Even if that means that government officials simply think that someone else will put the property to better use than you do. This has led to the fascist practice of confiscating private property from common individuals and giving that property to the politically connected under the guise of increased tax revenue which supposedly benefits the “public,” undermining the Anglo-American tradition of property rights established centuries ago.

Or look at the RICO Act which was originally adopted to fight organized crime but which has since been used to prosecute pro-life groups, the Catholic church, Major League Baseball, and the junk bond king Michael Milken. Or the Patriot Act which gives the government additional “tools” to fight terrorism. Those tools were used right here in east Tennessee to break up a cockfighting ring. While I find the practice of cockfighting detestable, somehow I don’t think that it is a threat to national security!

The point is that laws are often used in ways that their supporters never envision. Representative Moore probably has the best of intentions, but we can easily see how laws against “offensive” speech could be used by unscrupulous government officials to silence political opposition. Who can’t envision some government official claiming that in times of crisis unity is necessary and speech which criticizes the government is unacceptable? In fact, such a scenario has occurred multiple times in our history (see here, here, here, and here.)

Finally, we must realize that, like it or not, many of those folks with offensive bumper stickers pay taxes just like the rest of us. Hence, they have just as much a right to use government roads as we do. Ultimately, this issue is one of property rights. Who owns the roads and, thus, who has the right to make the rules about how those roads may be used? Because roads are “public” property, this question becomes muddled and confused. All of us are forced to pay taxes for roads, even if we are unhappy with how they are administrated. Unlike the private sector, there are no alternatives nor can we divest ourselves of our so-called ownership of the roads.

Unfortunately, it appears that government roads are with us for the foreseeable future. Thus, bumper stickers that may offend us are also with us for the foreseeable future. While we may find these bumper stickers distasteful, they are better than the alternative that is quickly manifesting itself–an even bigger, more intrusive, more tyrannical nanny state.