As noted by Ann Coulter, there are no asterisks in the First Amendment. However, for the over 12% of the population that is disabled, the time, place and manner restrictions that do not account for the disabled population place a bold asterisk on the First Amendment, that is, the government must not violate a person’s freedom of speech, unless that person is disabled. If law and policy makers consider these seven principles, it is likely that the 12% of the population that are identified as disabled may be better able to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly, as opposed to relegated to platforms where they are less able to spread their message or consume the message of others…
There are times when I just sit and repeat the story of these unarmed black and brown bodies who were killed. I imagine I am telling it to a future generation
It plays out like this: Something happens and the teen says “call the cops!” But they are stopped. Teen comes to me and asks why. I tell Teen that we can’t be sure if the cop will see us as a victim or suspect. Teen insists his friend is a victim (of whatever) and that much is clear.
It seems every month or so there is a new call to action for a new cause. Whether it’s defeating a racist, pedophile in a Senate race in a very red state (I’m looking at you Roy Moore), or saving healthcare, or saving the internet. One thing that I notice is that in all these movements and, I guess protests (?), is that no one ever talks about how losing any of these would affect the disabled. At least not really. It’s usually the disabled population who bring it up.
So I want to share with you a thread which focused on net neutrality and the impact that loss would be on the disabled population.