In America, "an individual has a fundamental right to possess and view what he pleases in his own home"
chris, 09 Dec 2005 11:48:33
Just like to point out that in America
"an individual has a fundamental right to possess and view what he pleases
in his own home"
Obviously English people are not as capable as the American people at
controlling themselves ):
Chris
Amelie, 09 Dec 2005 13:24:16
where does this quote come from? Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 09 Dec 2005 13:24:16
To:
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 11:46 AM
Lothario, 09 Dec 2005 15:24:51
Child porn? Bomb-making equipment? Detailed photographs and plans of
major buildings?
Sounds like nonsense, and meaningless without the context and source.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
chris, 09 Dec 2005 17:53:54
"Noting that Extreme Associates sought to challenge the statutes not on its
own behalf but on behalf of the individual privacy rights of its customers,"
wrote Judge Smith, "the District Court concluded that because '[n]either the
Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has considered
a substantive due process challenge to the federal obscenity statutes by a
vendor arguing that the laws place an unconstitutional burden . . . on an
individual's fundamental right to possess and view what he pleases in his
own home,' Extreme Associates' challenge was not precluded by the
Reidel/Orito line of cases. According to the District Court, the instant
case is controlled instead by Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and their
progeny." [Citations removed here and below]
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=250614
Chris
----- Original Message -----
"Lothario" , 09 Dec 2005 17:53:54
To:
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 3:24 PM
chris, 09 Dec 2005 18:15:56
Enter Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In Judge Lancaster's view, an
individual has a "fundamental right to possess and view what he pleases in
his own home." By the simple expedient of reading the Court's holding in
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 568 (1969) that "the First and Fourteenth
Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a
crime" together with its holding in Lawrence v. Texas that the state may not
criminalize consensual sodomy that occurs in the privacy of the home he
reaches the rather extraordinary conclusion that Extreme Associates
"[constitutional] challenge is not precluded by Roth, Reidel, Thirty-Seven
Photographs, Orito, and 200-Ft. Reels, but is instead guided by cases such
as Stanley, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas."
Judge Lancaster has committed of the most basic errors in constitutional
law: "forget[ting] that it is a constitution we are expounding." The Supreme
Court has stated repeatedly that "[t]he First and Fourteenth Amendments have
never been treated as absolutes," Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 23. It
has categorically rejected the proposition that "obscene, pornographic films
acquire constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because they
are exhibited for consenting adults only." Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton,
413 U.S. 49, 57 (1973), and it has specifically held that "there are
legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized
obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards
against exposure to juveniles and to passersby." Id. Even the most generous
reading of Stanley, Griswold, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence does not support the
proposition that there must be a "free market" in pornography.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1420&wit_id=4084
Just found a bit more stuff that agues that Judge Lancasters view is flawed?
At least the've got contitutions to argue about! Note the first and
fourteenth amendments.
----- Original Message -----
"Amelie"
, 09 Dec 2005 18:15:56
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 1:22 PM
Paul C. Dickie, 10 Dec 2005 07:00:59
In message <004a01c5fceb$f84b3680$0502a8c0@joneswp1ubx9b3>,
chris@glamour.org.uk wrote:
>413 U.S. 49, 57 (1973), and it has specifically held that "there are
>legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized
>obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards
>against exposure to juveniles and to passersby." Id. Even the most generous
>reading of Stanley, Griswold, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence does not support the
>proposition that there must be a "free market" in pornography.
>
>http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1420&wit_id=4084
>
>Just found a bit more stuff that agues that Judge Lancasters view is flawed?
In so far that he is a mere judge, whereas the Senate are politicians.
>At least the've got contitutions to argue about! Note the first and
>fourteenth amendments.
Which plainly do not apply to foreigners or to anyone to whom Dubya hath
decided should not be protected by the Constitution.
Still, at least the Americans still have the rights to bear arms and to
use them to replace a tyranny with a democracy, don't they?
--
< Paul >