🚀 go-pugleaf

William Yang (wyang@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
[deleting quoted post]
: Uhm, actually, my understanding is that obscenity actually has a legal
: definition.  I'm quite certain "indecency" doesn't.  I'm not sure if
: "patently offensive" does or not.

My understanding is that the Act tried to institute definintions for these
rather vague terms; and the vagueness is where they lost in court.
However, because, as you mention, we are talking about "law", any
definition would serve as long as it was precise.

That's at the heart of my point! Just because "it's the law" doesn't make
it _real_, because the "law" is essentially political, the tool of what
ever power structure is at the top at the time.

: Since it has a legal definition, it's not a distinction without a
: difference, nor is it really arbitrary (in that it's a known standard
                               ^^^^^^^^^
To expand on my previous paragraph, the "law" is just the enforced moral
_opinion_ of the ruling class, arbitrary by any working definition.

: against which we can measure forms of expression, in a legal sense).

Which leads to the broader point that legality and morality conicide by
accident alone, _because_both_are_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder_. 

The Founding Fathers recognized this fact. Thus the most important point
in the Jeffersonian model of government is _not_ majority rule (that is
taken as a prerequisite), but maximum freedom of individual action (short
of anarchy) for all citizens, including the many minorities of a democracy.

: 	-Bill
: -- 
: William D Yang					YANG@freenet.columbus.oh.us

: Look at the time on this message; it's got to be just *my* opinion,
: not my organization's.  Really.  I mean it!

You mean to tell me that they actually give you some time off?!? Well I'm
not sending any more donations to any outfit that doesn't work its staff
24 hours a day!  ;)

Actually, I hope you get lots of overtime; but I fear you're salaried.

--Fred