One of our most treasured freedoms in this nation is codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states “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.”

In particular is the right to public dissent and the freedom to express personal opinions that criticize specific ideas, positions, policies, and institutions. This freedom is essential to a free society in which ideas are allowed to compete for acceptance. Conversely this freedom also allows for the public condemnation of ideas that are believed to be false, and harmful to persons and society. This is essential to healthy debate within a pluralistic society where ideas, both good and bad, have the right to be expressed. It is this form of pluralism that then allows for such concepts as conversion. Opposing ideologies can freely compete for supremacy in the marketplace of ideas and observers can be converted to one position or the other based upon the merits of the given arguments, evidence and facts.

Practically, this means that even the most offensive ideas have the right to be expressed. This is necessary because there can be no attempt to preempt “offensive ideas” without first establishing an a priori standard that says some ideas are bad and of course this requires judgment of some kind from someone. This is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to limit – the right of “someone” in a position of governmental power to judge some speech acceptable and some not. Granted this is not an unlimited right; obscenity, slander, and libel are not protected under the First Amendment but the central aim of this amendment was to limit the government’s suppression of the broadest possible expression of ideas and opinions.

Today, legislators in the House of Representatives are pushing for a “discharge petition” to force a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001, (LLEHCPA), H.R. 1343, another federal Hate Crimes bill that would add “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability” to current hate crimes law. Introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), this one has more than 100 cosponsors. LLEHCPA would authorize the Justice Department to conduct local law enforcement hate crimes training, and to conduct expanded hate crimes investigations and prosecutions.

This legislation will ban alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether actual or perceived, as well as “gender,” which include the categories of transgender, cross-dresser, or transvestite. To be clear, I do not advocate denying the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to any person solely on the basis of their bad habits. However, neither do I advocate encouraging or sanctioning bad habits which impede persons in their reasonable and moral use of those rights.