From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:17:31 +0800
To: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Bomb Making Info to be Illegal
In-Reply-To: <v0310280bafd83fcea0f8@[10.0.2.15]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970626122600.1130A-100000@purple.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:

> >It appears that Roth v. United States was the first case before that the
> >U.S. SC decided that "obscenity" was not protected by the 1st Amendment.
> >The reasoning was that while offensive, unorthodox, or hateful ideas
> >are protected by the 1st, they, unlike pornography, have at least *some*
> >redeeming social value.  The court noted that laws enacted after the
> >ratification of the U.S. Constitution banned several different kinds of
> >speech, including profanity, blasphemy, and libel.  It's a very common
> >tactic for the courts to refer to post-ratification laws to support
> >limits on Constitutional rights.
> 
> I can't see that anyone, including the courts, should use redeeming social
> value as a yardstick.  This term has all the hateful aspects of one group's
> mores being used to limit the freedom of their neighbor in the privacy of
> their home and thoughts.  After all, one man's ceiling is another man's
> floor.

I believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, but I can see
valid arguments, both for and against, the belief that the text of the
1st applies to obscenity.

> 
> What if we create religion who's practice requires use and possesion of
> child porn?  Wonder how the SC would rule, given its rulings allowing use
> of peyote by certain native American tribes and against the Mormons on the
> issue of bigemy.

On a related note, the supreme Court ruled today, in a 6-3 decision,
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was un-Constitutional.  This
federal law required that States prove that they have a "compelling
interest" to enforce laws that infringe on religious freedom.  This
ruling means that the States can continue to enforce peyote laws
against native Americans and, of course, enforce child porn laws against
anyone and everyone.



Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBM7KcEizIPc7jvyFpAQEL8wgAlQic5o76u4AWLBECfYPB5hCbi+KqlUFC
l3vIdwRfg5FTrTrRI+7LFz8UT6lZmBzR+qWJLRLgQPO6QgC0bhiRLLSWUWas2TAN
4nIyjh4J3E5JBWJLuzQ8ZccOOXmTR2+uEPb48568zsRzYeFV9HcgI/PgDvjwexye
+o5Kbs6zdN4kzDoLkgPTCsCxThb5FK/8OHtfNLQb4d7n5tK5FpWYjB/xbsYU00Sq
mDJcA2ekA9ky/5z3oXaKsrXiIw6AOJEyeQxEzmfuL5je6+Dm+HoxGqTh+xRyRH7v
mmKtFRx7yiYwifQHwPNEbW3IoUEWmfKvLpyQxeiQDsYc2pv8ycfUTg==
=+5Wz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----