Xref: utzoo news.admin:3647 misc.legal:5991
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!apple!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is alt.sex about to be legislated away?
Message-ID: <553@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 7 Oct 88 16:51:38 GMT
References: <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <3161@hubcap.UUCP>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 60

In article <3161@hubcap.UUCP>, grimlok@hubcap.UUCP (Grimlok) writes:
> From article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, by jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum):
> > In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes:
> > First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense.  It is nonsense.  Pornography
> > is not protected under the First Amendment.  Your complaining about the bill
> > is covered.  So you may continue to complain. ;-)
> 
> Now, my understanding of pornography in the United States is that it
> technically doesn't exist. Granted, certain films, books, magazines,
> what-have-you have been found to be obscene, that is, serving to incite
> only the prurient interests without any social, political, artistic, or
> educational benefits. But these are few and far between and are hardly
> enough to compose any threat to society.

Not quite true.  There have been a number of decisions over the last 30
years on the subject of obscenity, and they haven't all agreed.  The
most recent decisions by the Supreme Court on this subject have left
the door open for the definition of "obscenity" to be based on local
community standards (whatever that means).  Obscenity can be prohibited
(though I don't think it should be).  The question before the Supreme
Court has been, over the last decade or so, not, "Can obscenity be
prohibited?" but "What defines obscene?"

> One more thing, who is anyone else to tell what I can and can't do
> within my own home--as long as what I do isn't hurting _anyone_. I'm not
> out there trying to force people to watch the Playboy Channel, why is
> there a horde of people tryingto force me to not watch it? I always felt
> that my rights stopped at the end of my nose...

For the same reason that you aren't allowed to hire someone under any
conditions that you both agree to -- someone is convinced that the
external effects are so severe, as to be a hazard to the rest of the
society.

Capitalism is a private act between consenting adults -- just like you
watching the Playboy Channel.  A lot of people out there are convinced
there are risks that accrue to the rest of us, and therefore require 
restrictions on individual freedom.  (In both cases, of course, there
may well be side effects to the society as a whole -- but in both cases,
the meddlesome ones in our society use this as a excuse to run people's
lives).

> Why didn't our founding fathers have the foresight to include the right
> to privacy/be left alone in the Bil of Rights? Sigh...

Actually, they did -- the Ninth Amendment specifies that powers not
granted explicitly are reserved to the people or states:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
    be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Unfortunately, the courts found excuses to use the so-called "elastic
clause" of the Constitution to expand the powers of the Federal Govern-
ment, and the State Constitutions weren't sufficiently restrictive of
state power.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer
..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer