Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!dual!ucbvax!info-law
From: Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
Newsgroups: mod.legal
Subject: Freedom of silence?
Message-ID: <851219220301.696014@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 17:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: CISL-SER.851219220301.696014
Posted: Thu Dec 19 17:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 04:11:30 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 66
Approved: info-law@sri-csl.arpa

Thankyou Col.  G.  L.  Sicherman and Kurt at John Fluke for responding
to my posting of freedom of silence.  My main point in the original
posting was to get information on how this kind of argument holds up in
court.  I realize this was pushing things pretty far, but as I am not a
lawyer I don't know how far you can go.  Col.Sicherman's comments are
the first definate info about this.  Would you happen to have any
specific references of cases of this nature?

Although I don't realy want to push this issue here I feel compelled to
offer alternative ways of viewing some of the things Col Sichrman and
Kurt said.

> ...isn't freedom of 'expression' meant as an interpretation of >
freedom of 'speech' designed to protect speech as it appears in > other
media like books, radio, and television?  In this case, > freedom of
speech does not necessarily cover absolutely every way you > might
choose to express yourself.

I am under the impression that the was you dress, or don't, and how long
you wear your hair are established as "expression".  A key recent
example of not dressing as "expresion" was at a speach Pr.  Reagan gave
in Wisconsin.  There were protesters there in various level of undress
carrying sign such as "face the naked truth about...".  They were not
arrested because they were clearly making a political statement about
something.  After the speach when the protesters continued nudity
without any particular political statement they were arrested, but to
the best of my knowledge there behaviour during there protest was not an
issue in their arrest.  More detailed info on this case would be nice if
anyone has it.

> In regard to running naked on a beach, your right to freedom of >
expression may be in conflict with other people's right to > privacy,...

I entirely realize this conflict, what I don't know about is how our
system balances these types of conflict.  On the extreme It is clear
that you can not physical harm someone or threaten to do so, except in
self defence.  You can not even say things that indirectly harm others,
like the trivial yelling "Fire" in a theater.  Most restrictions invlove
physical harm to someone else.  In the case of not wearing anything on a
beach I fail to see how anyone is being physically harmed.
Philosophically harmed I understand, but I know of no other instances
where one philosophy is legally protected from others.  A fun example
would revolve around the issue of smoking.  There are many people who
believe that life is fairly sacred etc...  and that any deliberate
action that detroys life for no good purpose is wrong.  People of this
type might find the sight of someone smoking extremely repulsive, after
all they are deliberatly harming their health.  I would be amazed if any
law were ever passed restricting smoking on these grounds, that it
presents a hazard to others I could see.

> Would you like to see smoking and spitting in public places >
protected as expressing beliefs about their goodness?  Should > those
who believe that loud music is therapeutic be allowed to > play it in
hospitals?

In the case of smoking and spitting in public, If it were not for the
public health hazard they represent I would think this a perfectly
reasonable argument In their favor.  The problems with smoke are clear,
I am less certain that spitting is realy a health hazard.  Both create a
problem by creating filth and litter which cost everyones tax dollars to
clean up.  In the case of loud music in a hospital you are phsically
denying people much needed rest and therefore harming them.  In most
cases it seems that restrictions only are places where real phyical or
financial harm exists.

Enough on this for now, John Mills