🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53bidc$58a@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Paul S Galvanek <psg+@pitt.edu> wrote:
}In article <53b1r8$7jf@wanda.vf.pond.com>,
}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.
}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.  

This is where you get to the fringes of the First Amendment.  But when
you start complaining that people are using such displays to advance
their views (as you did), and try to ban it because of that, you are
heading straight to the heart of the First Amendment.

}movie posters or handing out advertisements with nudity, 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? 
}
}Paul S. Galvanek

I think you'll find, Paul, that you can bare your breasts in public
all you want, without running afoul of the law.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."