Final answer:
The graduated driver license (GDL) law prevents motorists from using handheld electronic devices, exemplifying legal discrimination intended for public safety. Such legal measures are widely accepted when they serve a legitimate public interest, like ensuring that only trained and responsible individuals are allowed to drive. Legal discrimination can differ from unjust discrimination when it seeks to protect individuals and the society as a whole.
Step-by-step explanation:
Under the graduated driver license (GDL) law, a motorist cannot use handheld electronic devices while driving. The GDL law is a legal framework set up to ensure that new drivers acquire the necessary experience and skills to drive safely on public roads. The law stipulates various stages of driving privileges that new drivers must pass through before obtaining a full driver's license. Such regulations are a form of legal discrimination, which means to differentiate between groups based on set criteria, as opposed to unjust discrimination based on personal characteristics. It's essential to note that this kind of legal discrimination is designed for public safety and is widely accepted as a reasonable measure to ensure that only sufficiently trained and responsible individuals are allowed to drive.
Legal discrimination is apparent in various aspects of society and is considered justified when it serves a legitimate public interest. For instance, age restrictions on smoking and drinking are in place to protect young people from harmful substances, while educational requirements for college admission ensure that students are prepared for higher education. These measures, although treating people differently, are not deemed unconstitutional because they serve significant societal objectives.
Furthermore, legal discrimination, such as the GDL laws, follow the principle that driving is a privilege, not a right, which can be regulated by the state to protect its citizens. Governments use such regulations to maintain safety and order, not to arbitrarily suppress individual freedoms. Thus, the equal protection clause, while advocating for equal treatment, allows for differentiation when there is a compelling state interest at stake.