From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 20:14:41 BST
Hi Rick,
I guess I have more to say.
>In public, where the right is at its minimum,
>privacy is a much more limited concept (generally extending to your rights
>against search and seizure at the hands of the police).
So, Rick, does this mean it's LEGAL to walk around with a bag of weed tucked
in your pocket? And legal to take it out and smoke it or sell it when you
get inside a friend's house? I don't see how "zones of privacy" become
"zones of legality".
>This perspective would conclude that the law is
>constantly being modified to try and reflect the needs, interests and
>expectations (i threw that one in just for you J) of society... logic be
>damned.
I've never been a stickler for legal consistency, I feel that the
legistature can make whatever laws it wants, regardless of the "logic" or
consistency. This court is saying Texas's morals aren't the country's
morals, and therefore we will impose the country's morals (or actually, the
court's elitist cosmopolitian dinner-party media-ready morals).
>But if you want to get technical...
>The Supreme Court's own analysis revolves around concepts of legally
>defined 'zones of privacy' and every individual's 'reasonable expectation'
>of privacy. In the home, (where the right to privacy is at its legal
>maximum) privacy is the individual's right to be let alone and be free from
>unnecessary government intrusion and specifically revolves around things
>like marriage, child rearing, contraception, abortion, and now sexual acts
>between consenting adults. In public, where the right is at its minimum,
>privacy is a much more limited concept (generally extending to your rights
>against search and seizure at the hands of the police). To the court, the
>issue is really about how much power *the government* has to make and
>enforce laws that violate these zones of privacy. The Supreme Court's
>recent opinion in Lawrence v. Texas held (among other things) that state
>legislatures cannot use the mechanisms of the *criminal* law for the *sole
>purpose* of enforcing the moral views of the majority. A legitimate
>interest (eg. health, safety or welfare) must accompany the moral concern
>and the operation and effect of the law must be rationally related to that
>legitimate threat. What this new pronouncement implies for public decency
>and obscenity laws is anyone's guess (Justice O'Connor felt that most such
>laws will be safe, though she didn't really explain why, Justice Scalia
>felt
>that most such laws are now doomed, the majority didn't really say much
>about it at all) and who will be right is up to 'history' and future
>actions
>by courts, legislatures and voters all over the country.
You mean the courts. Apparently voters and legislatures don't have much to
do with it.
>J
>Who is harmed by merely witnessing consentual sex? Uptight people
> > only, right?
>
>R
>Who knows? If we saw it all the time, we probably wouldn't think twice
>(this is the spot for your philosophy of expectation). On the other hand,
>getting naked in public might be dangerous (for the ladies especially) and
>preventing rapes and sexual assaults might be a legitimate enough interest
>to keep everyone clothed in the town square and there could be public
>health
>issues involved as well (although I'm no epidemiologist).
I think they are just relying on the fact that most people probably won't
want people looking at them. But there will be a few "nudists" and public
sex lovers who will be emboldened by this decision (and Scalia's invitation)
who will question the right of a state to discriminate against them, while
allowing straights to walk around anywhere they want. There are lots of
people who only enjoy sex in public, for them "regular" sex is not at all
interesting. This is a class of people.
This is an example of how I think people ought to be make it judgements
"ahistorically" and absolutely. No one should say this is "true for now",
no one should say this is "currently just", a court should assert truths
that stand for all time, not temporary ones. They aren't Alan Greenspan,
adjusting the pruience rate of the nation.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 20:14:58 BST