When it comes to free speech, I am all for expressing whatever idiotic notion you might find yourself supporting; in fact I am generally amused by it.

Be it your t-shirt with a sexual innuendo, some ill-informed political stance misspelled and written sloppily on a placard, or even a lewd word directed against the idea of “the establishment” crushing your beliefs, I will rally to the cause of free speech — even while I pray to the heavens above that I could prevent some folks from expressing their particularly twisted messages.

The latest infringement on the delicate sensibilities of residents to have some states’ panties in a bunch are those superfluous “truck nuts.” I remember seeing those things when I was in high school and wondering what the point was, and then remembering I grew up in a rather redneck setting and shrugging it off. Often, I would hop in the truck with the very people whose trucks had nuts, and we would drive off to party in a field.

Recently though, in South Carolina of all places, police chief Franco Fuda decided a pair of red hanging truck nuts adorning the trailer hitch of one Virginia Tice was a violation of the state’s obscene bumper sticker law.

“A sticker, decal, emblem, or device is indecent … in a patently offensive way, as determined by contemporary community standards, sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body,” according to the South Carolina code of laws.

Just in case you haven’t exercised due diligence in understanding how the First Amendment works, I’ll let you in on a flaw to South Carolina’s law: In the Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson, it was laid out that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable — thank you Dirk Deam’s Constitutional law courses.

With that in mind, Fuda’s $445 ticket written to Tice is going to be tossed out. It’ll be treated the same way that many other “violations” of a similar kind are by any judge worth his salt; too bad some morons in this country are bigots who like to have judges who understand the concept of correctly interpreting the law ousted.

But if this is all going to be dealt with so simply — especially considering the fact that I came up with the correct response within 30 seconds of reading about this — why is this getting coverage more than a joke or two in “The Daily Show”?

Well, it is because laws like this are still in place across this fair country, and they are not eliminated nearly enough. Somehow, crazy laws that violate constitutional freedoms are still being passed, or are still sitting on the books with nary a challenger in sight.

How, you might ask, are these problems still cropping up? Simply put, it is because many folks — and sadly, many politicians — have little idea of what is actually written in the Constitution, let alone how the Supreme Court has ruled on cases concerning the article or amendment of pertinence.

It is bad enough that our educational system is so in the shitter that many students cannot even tell you a quarter of the contents of the Constitution, but the cherry on top is that some of those folks elected to office — and even seriously running for president, which is truly frightening — who are supposed to be familiar with the Constitution don’t know what it actually says; they just wing it, provoking some marvelous public mockery across the Web.

I know, I know, knowledge of the contents of the Constitution isn’t really relevant to your job, getting a job or your day-to-day lives.

Wait — hold on a second. Yes it is.

If you are glad some random creeper cannot slap your behind at work for a “job well done” without your permission, thank the Constitution. If you appreciate the fact that you cannot be forced into a separate bathroom because of your skin color, thank the Constitution.

And if you want to keep some overly zealous law enforcement agents from barging into your den to root through your personal effects, you had better thank the Constitution.

What I’m getting at is that you need to be informed about what can or cannot be done to or by you, as set forth and ruled upon by our Supreme Court so that you don’t fall prey to the acts of the misguided holding positions of authority.

So I will leer and jeer, throw up my middle finger and say “fuck you” here and in other forums at the notion of people in positions of power being so ignorant. Because according to the way the First Amendment has been interpreted (and correctly, I might add), I am expressing myself in compliance with the law.