You must log in or register to comment.

sudo wrote

This is very misleading. Murdock v. Pennsylvania was about a city trying to require Jehovah's Witnesses to apply for a license to distribute their "literature", and Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham was about Birmingham trying to send a black civil rights leader to jail for holding a march without a permit. In both cases, the statements are referring to liberties protected by the U.S. constitution (in both cases, this is freeze peach). Owning a bicycle, owning a dog, and going fishing are not "liberties" protected by the constitution, so these statements are taken out of context, and they sound like they're saying things they aren't.

Now, in some cases, I think these types of licenses are justified. Fishing licenses make the most sense - overfishing can decimate the fish populations of lakes and rivers, so it makes sense to regulate who is able to catch fish, and how many. Dog licenses can make sense for large cities, especially if they have problems like pet neglect, or too many strays. For bicycle licenses, these seem to mostly be optional, with free registration. I guess some people might want to register them, in case the bike gets stolen, and the thief is dumb enough to not remove the license plate. Or something.

TL;DR: Those quotes are taken out of context, and there are situations where requiring licenses to do certain things is prudent.


Pop wrote

Thanks for this!

I assumed as much but didn't have the info