Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!xerox.com!hoffman.es
From: hoffman.es@xerox.com
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: Proposed amendment
Message-ID: <12228452276.51.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 16:14:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12228452276.51.MCGREW
Posted: Tue Aug  5 16:14:35 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Aug-86 02:16:20 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: hoffman.es@xerox.com
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 73
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


I had proposed a trial wording for a privacy amendment:

     The United States and no state shall make any law pertaining
     to private activities of informed, consenting persons.
     Activities are deemed private unless involving a clear and
     present danger to uninformed or non-consenting others.

        From: Keith Lynch
        
        The main problem is 'clear and present danger'.
        This can be used to justify sodomy laws (to 
        prevent spread of AIDS), drug laws (to prevent
        people from harming others while they are on 
        drugs and not able to control their actions),...
        and prohibition of pornography (on the grounds
        that it (according to Meese) causes people to 
        commit violent sex crimes).

I completely disagree with your first objection.  Any anti-sodomy law
would be unconstitutional under the proposed amendment insofar as it
pertained to informed and consenting parties.  That is, if both
parties to sodomy are informed (including informed about AIDS) and
consent anyway, no law could touch them.  On the other hand, it would
probably permit a law saying that both parties to consensual sodomy
would have to swear to being informed about AIDS risks.  Well, I'd
allow that.  I'm all for information!

As to drugs, I certainly do NOT intend to wipe out drunk driving laws,
for example.  That is, I DO wish to "prevent people from harming
others while they are on drugs" to the extent that such harm is
reasonably forseeable.  What I want to prohibit are laws against
private drug use, and I think the proposed amendment would do that.

As to porn, I love it.  And I think any anti-porn laws should be
outlawed by the First Amendment.  (Yes, I know the courts think
otherwise.)  In any case, I definitely had such things in mind when I
used the "clear and present danger" phrase.  I don't think the Meese
commission showed any such danger.  They SAID there is a danger, but
they couldn't and can't back it up.

        From: Keith Lynch
        
        'Informed' is another loophole.  It can be argued
        that certain actions are so irrational that the person 
        performing them must necessarily either be not informed 
        or not sane.

Hmm.  I would like to see the state forced to take my word for it if I
said I knew what I was doing, including facts about A, B, C, ..., and
Z.  Now if they think I'm insane, that's a separate issue to be tried.

        From: Keith Lynch
        
        Also, do you think people should be allowed to play
        very loud music outdoors at 2 am?  ... What about 
        shining spotlights into people's windows at night?
        What about a peeping tom?

No.  No.  What about one?  

I think overly loud music forced upon me (at any time) IS a clear
danger to me.  (Note that a club could have it, since I can enter and
leave as I wish.)  Same about a spotlight.  As for a peeping tom,
you're right, there could be no laws against one; what's the problem?
My amendment certainly doesn't prohibit laws against trespassing or
the like.  If you wish to permit others on your property, but you
don't want them looking in your window, it's your responsibility to
use your curtains.  If you don't want them on your property at all,
that's certainly your right.

        -- Rodney Hoffman
-------