“The idea of neutrality in the speech context not only requires that the state refrain from choosing among viewpoints, but also that it not structure public debate in such a way as to favor one viewpoint over another. The state must act as a high-minded parliamentarian, making certain that all viewpoints are fully and fairly heard.”

talk is cheap; Absent consensus it does nothing

The question I ask is should the state be involved in the first place? Because if they are? It shows they have an opinion already of interest on the subject at hand in wanting a majority/mob rule.. This is more prevalent the farther the state is from us. Federal being the farthest and county the closest. Anytime a vote is taken, it shows one more step of individual liberty diminished. And the state encouraged that by simply holding the vote of opinions. Yet some would make argument that we need to work together? Should it be by state or joining in a joint effort by those who choose to belong? Allowing individuals the right to exempt themselves?

The idea of neutrality in the speech context is only an issue when a government of men has replaced a government at law. In the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, the professed "idea neutrality" is only a lying mask to cover dogma supporting an implementation of theocratic socialism / totalitarian despotism.

"Neutrality in speech context."
Is a rarely encountered subject for most of us armchair philosophers. I believe it has to do with getting permission from the government to use their facilities; the most common example is permission to hold a parade down a busy street. If they won't give permission to anyone Mon through Fri, that's neutral.
The least commonly stated example is the most common in practice: government owned schools. They knock themselves out to be fair about who gets the microphone in their open space, but what about all the time the government chosen teachers are holding the microphone?

+1 charley denver... The state existing displays the opinion that some few authoritarian psychopaths have the right to tell everyone else how to live, and everyone else is supposed to 'gimme your money or your life.' Seems pretty biased to me.

Did you all see the Anonymous, phx quote above?
"talk is cheap; Absent consensus it does nothing"
That is really really good. And it is not found by Google. Even that entry hasn't been found by Google. It is original in the past few hours. So who is phx?
Does anybody know?

Ask yourself: "Has our government, our president, or even the media been neutral throughout the Zimmerman trial?" Seems to me that the president and states attorney have been flowing with the mob from the beginning; wanting to see Zimmerman hanged despite what a jury thinks. He was acquitted by the state of Florida so now the federal government is looking for a way to press charges. Tyranny in action my friends.