How could that be? Is it fair that somedays and some situations cause me to think differently than others? Is that why the supreme court struggles with consistency as well? How come certain cases receive certain burdens of truth while others do not?
The only technique that allowed me to develop strong opinions was to research and learn every detail about precedent setting cases. That way, I knew what to apply and how to think based on the way others have thought in the past. However, this brought up very difficult issues for me. How are we really going to reach truth if we apply past thoughts and decisions? Aren't things changing everyday? How is it fair to use previous opinions instead of your own?
The issue of animal violence depictions is a great example of how modern times are calling for new thinking. Instead of using Stevens vs. U.S., we must look to other areas in society for answers. I'm really going to go with Chafee on this one and say that the U.S. has a great social interest in stopping the distribution of animal violence depictions.
While animal rights is an issue I will always be concrete and passionate about, other topics like sexual speech still confuse me. I find myself being very absolute in my beliefs but at the same time, wanting a good amount of freedom. The internal warfare that has been going on inside me between too much freedom and not enough has been painful! This course has challenged my brain in a way it never has been before! My brain is sore in the best way, I cannot thank everyone enough for twisting my mind into knots.
I feel like I am leaving this course with many unanswered questions BUT the tools to find the answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment