A TIPSY ARGUMENT ON FREE SPEECH

The First Amendment of the Constitution, among other things, protects
the rights of Americans to say and write what they want, generally
without fear of government interference.

That the Founding Fathers - facing prosecution by the crown for their
words - would try to protect free speech and press is no surprise.
They saw such expression as central to a healthy dialogue, and a sober
dialogue as central to a strong democracy.

Generally, the courts have extended that protection to things far
beyond the political realm - even to pornography. With the exception
of the Supreme Court's recent ruling about "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," the
general trend has been to widen the right to free expression, even
when the speech is stupid.

Which it no doubt is, late on a Friday or a Saturday, at almost every
bar and nightclub on the planet. Conversations are probably also
boring, when they're not profane or dirty.

Not long ago, the owners of six nightclubs at the Oceanfront and in
Norfolk filed a federal suit attempting to broaden free speech
protections to the drunken conduct of their patrons. They've sued the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, claiming its rules against "noisy,"
"lewd" or "disorderly" conduct run afoul of the Constitution.

This page is the first to defend the right of any American to say what
he wants, no matter how stupid, so long as it doesn't harm anybody
else. But defending the right of drunks to get rowdy and take off
their clothes seems way beyond what even we understand as
constitutionally protected speech.

Such bottled "courage" is a given side-effect of alcohol's tendency to
lower a drinker's inhibitions. And while freedom includes the right to
do things both stupid and self-destructive, generally, freedom ends
where it impinges on another person's rights, say, the folks who have
to watch somebody vomit on the sidewalk or another somebody lift her
shirt.

Anyone who doesn't think alcohol encourages people to say and do
things they regret either doesn't drink or doesn't speak or do
anything. Indeed, bars sell drinks based on the ability of alcohol to
lower inhibitions enough to allow people to do stuff they'll regret in
the morning.

That's a business model that has endured for centuries. But let's not
pretend there's a constitutional right to the stupid things people do
when they're drunk. To the lawyers who have brought this action, we
say: Nice try, guys. Have another beer.