🚀 go-pugleaf

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.  

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 and if a adult theater can be prevented from displaying
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