Plato vs. Jefferson

     Plato's quote, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws," applies to the episode "Obscene" in that the mother is an example of a bad person trying to find their way around the laws.  The mother in the episode believed she was a good person, standing up to protect young adults from media she believed was explicit and would lead to bad outcomes in the future.  However, she would represent the "bad people" in this quote because she used the law to get what she wanted.  She shot a man and then attempted to blame it on him saying that if he hadn't made her son do what he did, then she would not have had to shoot him.  The mother took the freedom of speech law to mean that she should be able to restrict someone's speech if it led to the harm of another.  This coincides with Stephen's stance that the only time you can limit somebody's liberty is if by doing so, you limit the harm of others.  The mother was in the wrong in this situation because she harmed someone else for practicing their rights.  The idea that good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly may only be supported in certain situations.  If there were no laws telling people what was right and what was wrong, how would the so called "good people" know what was the responsible thing to do or not?
     The second quote from Thomas Jefferson, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen," also leads back to the mother being a bad example of a good person or citizen.  If she was, in Jefferson's opinion, a "good citizen", then she would not have shot the DJ and broken the law in doing so.  She was trying to set things straight in her opinion; take down the man who she believed had helped ruin her son's life.  To contradict what Jefferson believes, perhaps the mother was being a good citizen when she decided to break the law and harm someone else.  She shot the DJ in order to prevent him from speaking his opinions and possibly leading others like her son into committing wrongful acts.  She was, in her mind, only trying to prevent future harm to others.  Does that make her a bad citizen or a brave and good one?  If somebody breaks the law in order to uphold values or defend others, what is it that says they are not being a good citizen?  If everyone was expected to follow the laws that are in place, how would we be the country or world we are today?  Laws have evolved greatly over time and it is because of people, like the mother, who stand up and argue against what they believe is wrong.  I am not saying that the First Amendment needs to be changed or that she was right in what she did, I just mean to bring perspective to the point she was trying to make as a mother and a citizen worried about the well-being of others.