What I found remarkable about this sign was that all of the reasons put forth for maintaining our current age limit on drinking are plainly reasons for the total prohibition of alcohol — not reasons for the selective prohibition of alcohol based on age discrimination. To make their case, the PDNJ would need to demonstrate that the reduction in car accidents attributable to prohibiting the sale of alcohol to those under twenty-one is not in any way comparable to the reduction we would see after prohibiting the sale of alcohol to all Americans irrespective of age.

That said, clearly prohibition was more trouble than it was worth, so I think we need to ask: is prohibiting minors from drinking more trouble than its worth? Perhaps lowering the drinking limit is a good idea.

After all, there were certainly girls drinking at last night’s Dredg show that could not have been even eighteen, let alone twenty-one. Here, as in so many other places, needlessly restrictive laws lead to a society with no respect for laws.

Please do not end the Exclusionary Rule. We do not need to encourage the police to disregard the constitutional requirement for warrants.

Thank you.

While reading “Blown to Bits,” this suspicion of mine was reinforced by the following passage:

National and state borders still count, and count a lot. If a book is bought online in England, the publisher and author are subject to British libel laws rather than those of the homeland of the author or publisher. Under British law, defendants have to prove their innocence; in the U.S., plaintiffs have to prove the guilt of the defendants.¹

This tidbit relating to the differences between American and British libel law is exemplary of a general pattern: American products are often not available in Europe because American businesses fear the unfamiliar and sometimes incomprehensible laws of European governments. If Europeans want freer access to American goods, they will need to make sure that they will not punish Americans for selling goods that they can sell without fear in the States. In the opposite direction, but following precisely the same pattern, American children will have access to Kinder Eggs and other wonderful European products just as soon as America repeals some of its excessive child safety laws.

1. Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen and Harry Lewis : Blown to Bits : Preface

“Why shouldn’t I put you in jail for contempt today?” Booth asked. “I told you twice.”

“I’m sorry,” Arnold said.

“No, you’re not,” Booth said. “I told you twice. I even fined you for being in contempt. Why shouldn’t I throw you in jail today? You apparently don’t care about the court’s orders.

“I forgot,” Arnold said.

“How could you forget?” Booth said. “No, seriously, how could you forget? It’s a complete disregard of court order. Complete. You should go to jail today, and you’re going.”¹

I particularly like the fact that the judge used the words, “no, seriously.” For those who don’t want to read the original article, the judge was so incensed because the defendant repeatedly wore short shorts during her trial.

1. Bluegrass Beat : Judge jails woman for wearing short shorts

I have previously written about the worrisome willingness of Canadians and many Europeans to suppress speech that is intended to shame or mock certain religions or races. It should be doubly worrisome because this same willingness to suppress “hate speech” has recently become a part of the doctrine of universal human rights according to the U.N. Human Rights Council, thanks to a vote pushed through by such luminaries of civil liberties as China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia.

I, for one, feel that we Americans must continue to defend the doctrines crafted for us by Learned Hand and other jurists. We should never allow ourselves to forget that it is not the task of government to determine what speech is hateful, because such a requirement leads all too quickly to a government defining speech as hateful as justification for its suppression.