It’s not an either/or argument, nor should it be.

Oh, and I doubt that any challenge to the volume issue would find any traction, because there is no first amendment issue. Just because we allow all speech doesn’t mean we are required to allow people to yell into our homes. Use of bullhorns and amplification devices are also restricted in a very similar fashion.

The exception is if that state’s franchise was limited to people who hadn’t participated in rebellion, or weren’t in jail.

Perhaps, however, I was unclear: I wasn’t referring to legal justification. I was referring to moral justification.

I still think it should be scaled back and severely limited, though not necessarily abolished entirely. Just because it’s constitutional doesn’t mean it’s right to disenfranchise all felons. We strip a lot of civil rights from certain criminals, especially liberty and privacy (both in prison and after release), and effectively kick them out of civil society. This is certainly over-applied to those who never were or no longer are a threat to others. However I think an argument can be made that that, for example, a violent repeat offender has already effectively excluded themselves from civil society through their actions.