ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (Bud) (12/23/85)
Dear John, (I've always wanted to do that) If I may revive a somewhat overdicussed topic, I would like to bring up a few points about freedom of expression. First, although I cannot cite the case, (I'll look it up if you have a gr8 interest) there was a recent case where a policeman's "right" to wear his hair longer than regulation was held not to be included in the constitition's broad "expression" freedom. Regarding your "political nudity" example, keep in mind the purpose of the freedoms we are talking about. At the time of the drafting of the constitution, the Bill of Rights was not deemed necessary. It was only after the states refused to ratify the document without certain protective limitations on the powers of government that The B of R was added. Now, a political rally is rather a touchy subject and the Supreme Ct. will not touch it with a ten foot certiorari if they can help it. On the other hand, they are adroit at finding ways to "de-politicize" an issue they want to hear. (cites missing, do you want them?) So let's acknowledge that "political nudity" is far removed from nude beaches. Again, historically, the purpose of the freedom of expression was to insure that it would never be considered seditious in our fair young nation to voice an opinion, whether by voting, campaigning, debate or print (newspapers, handbills, TV, radio...) the concerns a people from time to time have about their government. It did not want to grant an absolute privilege to conduct oneself in any manner that may come to mind, in the name of expression. To the contrary, the courts have been more willing to cast penumbras upon the privilege rather than allow it to become universal. (Gertz, Butz, Sullivan, and Dun and Bradstreet line of cases.) So, I think you would do better not to view the freedom as what it was designed to permit, but rather as what it was designed to pro- hibit. It is not a license to do whatever you feel, it is a way to stop the government from eroding our political and ideological freedom. In my opinion.... Dave Massey (bud)
drears@ARDC.ARPA (Dennis G Rears) (12/23/85)
John:
After following the messages on freedom of expressions and reading your
introductions I thought would throw in my views.
> I am extremely
>interested in Freedom in a generic sence. It seems all my life people
>kept saying things like, "the best thing about America is you are free".
>After hearing that for better than 20 years I believed it. I now get
>very annoyed when I learn about the goverment doing anything that
>restricts personal freedom without a legitimate reason.
Freedom is a relative "thing" as is "legitimate". Just because one
person or many persons do not think a reason is reasonable does not make it
illegitimate.
Absolute freedom can not exist for a society that contains
more than one person. One person's freedoms conflict with anothers, that is
why the restrictions are neccessary. I also must state there are plenty of
restrictions I disagree with but on the whole it is the best system that can
exist. As Lincoln once said "You can't please all the people all the time". The
statement "the best thing about America is you are free" should probably be
restated as "The best thing about America is you are free to do whatever you
want as long as it does not 'reasonably' interfere with the freedoms of others"
Reasonableness , however is not well defined that is one of the reasons we have
lawyers, courts, ACLU, Jerry Falwell, and others.
A perfect example is the right to free speech. The Constitution does
not state there are any exceptions. However, the Supreme Court in many
decisions have restricted it. The example you stated about yelling
FIRE in a crowded theatre is one. The banning of child pornagraphy is
another. As a third example, judicial orders banning the publication of
minor's or victims' names in the media. Prior restraint of information
concerning national security has also been upheld.
>My favorite current example is what difference does it make to the purposes
>of goverment whether people wear bathing suits or not. You may find it
>interesting that in a fairly recent gallop poll, the majority of
>Americans think that clothing optional beaches are just fine, even if
>they might not personally use them. Yet the goverment supports the
>views of the minority. Yet another case of "The Moral Majority" not
>being the majority, and well, morals are subjective.
It seems as if you are implying that the government does as it pleases
without considering the wishes of its citizens. The government must protect
the minority when the minority is being hurt. If I use the majority argument,
Does that mean if a majority of Americans favour cutting off all government
aid to the poor. It should be done? Of course not. There is also the fallacy
of compostion in your argument when you state the majority of Americans ...
There is no federal law (to my knowledge) tha prohibits nude bathing. It is
a collection of state laws. Do a majority of that state residents favour
nude beaches?
I must add that I really don't care if we have nude beaches or not.
However I know of several people who would be "emotionally hurt" if subjected
to nude beaches. It could be argued that their hurt is greater than the hurt
of the would be nude bathers. As such a "reasonable man" would decide that
nude bathing should be banned or restricted.
Dennis