🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53bidc$58a@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Paul S Galvanek <psg+@pitt.edu> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:

>>You seem to think that this makes the bill acceptable, but it actually
>>makes it worse.  Now it's not just the exposure you're banning, but the use
>>of such exposure in political demonstrations -- which goes straight to
>>the heart of the First Amendment.

>It certianly does make it right as it has always been the case that while
>we have a right to free speech that speech is subject to some regulation.

Time place and manner.  They can't ban it entirely.  And as Matthew noted,
it most certainly _can't_ be banned because of the message it sends.  
Content neutral laws will sometimes be upheld, but not ones that ban 
something because people are demonstrating.

>That's why while people have a right to protest abortions, they can be forced
>to do it from across the street of a clinic, free speech may give you the
>right to have access to certian types of pornography but that does't mean 
>you can set up a tv in a pulbic park and watch you favorite flick.  

Sure.  Don't you read the warning at the beginning of videotapes?  No 
public showings.

>Speech that includes public displays of nudity is going to be regulated 
>whether you like it not.  Public nudity is simply not acceptable behavior
>in most communites 

Neither is wearing a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft," but it's
constitutionally protected.  Or burning a flag.  Not something acceptable
in most communities, but constitutionally protected nevertheless. 

>and if a adult theater can be prevented from displaying
>movie posters or handing out advertisements with nudity, 

Er, that's commercial speech, which has often been held by the courts to 
an entirely different standard than noncommercial speech.  However one 
feels about that double standard, it provides little help for you in this 
discussion.

>women who go out
>of the way to display themselves while breast feeding are sure going
>to get regualted - why should a breast feeding mother be allowed to do 
>in public something thing with her body that no one else is permitted to
>do? 

Who says they aren't?  In NY, anyway, courts have ruled that if men can go
topless, so can women. 
--
David M. Nieporent     |"I have been participating in the USENET for many
nieporen@pluto.njcc.com|years now. I have never found it to be a requirement
Plainsboro, NJ         |for anyone to know anything about any subject to post
DAVEY & ORIOLES 1996!!!|on any newsgroup."  -- seen on talk.politics.misc.