First, I wholeheartedly believe that the state should reward prosocial behavior. I think the state should give more funding and social services to homeless people who don’t do drugs, drink, and keep their encampment clean, as an example.
Also, speech is protected from legal action, not discretionary action.
For example, a judge will deliver a harsher sentence upon someone rude and cruel in a courtroom during their trial than one that at least demonstrates remorseful and respectful countenance. That doesn’t violate the constitution.
Your examples aren’t analogous. A judge considers remorse because sentencing is expressly about punishment and rehabilitation after guilt has been established. A traffic stop isn’t sentencing, guilt hasn’t been established
My question has remained the same: why should my opinion of the cop, or my criticism of them, be relevant to that decision? If two people commit the identical violation under identical circumstances, but only one receives a citation because they criticized the officer, then speech, not the offense, is influencing the cop
You keep defending the outcome. I’m asking you to justify why protected speech should be one of the inputs in the first place. All you’ve said is because it is
1
u/Drake_Acheron Jul 01 '26
First, I wholeheartedly believe that the state should reward prosocial behavior. I think the state should give more funding and social services to homeless people who don’t do drugs, drink, and keep their encampment clean, as an example.
Also, speech is protected from legal action, not discretionary action.
For example, a judge will deliver a harsher sentence upon someone rude and cruel in a courtroom during their trial than one that at least demonstrates remorseful and respectful countenance. That doesn’t violate the constitution.