Xref: utzoo misc.kids:9163 news.misc:3061 misc.misc:6316 talk.politics.misc:26859 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!shelby!apple!rutgers!mailrus!ukma!chaney From: chaney@ms.uky.edu (Dan Chaney) Newsgroups: misc.kids,news.misc,alt.sex,misc.misc,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: alt.sex to become illegal in New Jersey? Message-ID: <11755@s.ms.uky.edu> Date: 24 May 89 16:22:19 GMT References: <3246@looking.UUCP> <3302@tank.uchicago.edu> <1301@dover.sps.mot.com> <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> <1320@dover.sps.mot.com> Reply-To: chaney@ms.uky.edu (Dan Chaney) Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 24 In article <1320@dover.sps.mot.com> waters@dover.sps.mot.com (Strawberry Jammer) writes: >In article <4765@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> tcmaint@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Thomas A. Dowe) writes: > >I suspect that they are as "focused" on the 1st Amendment as the NRA is on >the 2nd. I don't see what the problem is with that. > The problem, most often, with focused SIGs is usually lack of comprehension. I do not mean that as a cut or flame. What I mean is that focusing in on one particular area or section of the Constitution often results in an interpretation that is out of context. By focusing, most of these groups narrow their sight to an exclusive point and in the process, lose some of the inherent meaning. The Constitution is blatantly vague in certain areas and that is not by accident. The document is not a list of rules that may be quoted wholly independent of one another. It is, instead (IMHO), a guideline to be applied, as a whole, in various and unprecendented ways. I am not saying specifically that is the case here, though I am inclined to believe it to a point. However, I do see a [potential] problem with -- Daniel Chaney Mail guy, archiver or Accidental Student..you decide. {uunet and the like}!ukma!chaney chaney@ms.uky.edu chaney@ukma.BITNET "No! nonono....This is Unix, you take out all the vowels!" - The Uhmmer