Attention “sodomites” of California – In February, Matt McLaughlin filed the “Sodomite Suppression Act.”

The act states that “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head.”

In order to pass, the act needs hundreds of thousands of signatures. Wonkette reports that the required number is equal to five percent of the number of votes in the most recent gubernatorial election – about 365,880 in this case. Those will be hard to come by. The current trend in response to McLaughlin’s initiative swings largely in favor of tolerance. Even with enough signatures, the unnerving proposition couldn’t be legally enforced. That would be murder.

In response to McLaughlin’s act, former Los Angeles politician and community activist Charlotte Laws filed the “Intolerant Jackass Act”, which would require McLaughlin to undergo sensitivity training.

Both of these acts are protected as free speech – it is perfectly legal for a person to file any initiative. So despite being polar opposites, both are required to be considered equally. It’s a battle of the values: One is threatening the lives of people based on one of their identities. The other, Law’s initiative, seeks vengeance for McLaughlin’s homophobic gall.

The ACLU supports free speech. This is to promote discussion. By keeping dissenters silent, prejudice is allowed to simmer underneath the surface of society.

The Supreme Court also has a history of supporting unfavorable opinions in the name of Free Speech, such as protecting the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest at funerals.

But at what point should it be protected? Suggesting people should be shot goes beyond the acceptable scope of free speech. We really should not be so lax in the face of such a dangerous sentiment.

The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to say anything sans consequence; it only guarantees that a person won’t go to jail for what they say.

One of the potential consequences of expressing offensive and intolerant speech could be the entertainment of Law’s proposition. How amazing it would be to send all the prejudiced people to sensitivity programs? Instead of saying “that’s wrong”, we could potentially have a society trained to say, “You are different from me – how can I better understand you?”

The initiative process exists to try to balance the current legislative system. To make it more difficult for the Matt McLaughlins to file acts would be to make it more difficult for anyone to file.

But in some cases, it’s better to be critical of the ideas proposed.