25-03-2002 02:56									#31
	The Court was trying to justify obscenity laws and cited profanity laws.... Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"The guaranties of freedom of expression 10 in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, 11 and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. 12 As early as [354 U.S. 476, 483] 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, 8 (1712), Mass. Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses. "

	25-03-2002 03:06									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"Sorry -- I made a mistake. There was no recent Supreme Court ruling, but a circuit ruling." Right. Now what about that precedent you mentioned as being overturned? The Supreme Court has never issued a decision that stated explicitly one way or another on this issue.

I tried searching for the Supreme Court rulings I am alluding to. I know I have read some of them before. One case was in the 1930's, another one was 1940's (I think), and another one in the 1970's.

I tried searching for them on the actual Supreme Court government website, but for some reason, the links were not working.

	25-03-2002 03:39									#33
	Got spare money?

Ramo,

quote: Actually, profanity has been considered libel, and therefore isn't protected by the First Amendment.

I don't think there's any credible debate about whether I can say "What the ****" - what you refer to is not being able to call someone a mother****er, I believe.

Imran,

quote: Anyway, I think that everything under fully automatic should be allowed, but there should be licensing and registration of guns

I would think that licensing/registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy/9th Amendment - this is different from cars, which are driven on public roads. If you drive a car on your own land and aren't endangering anyone, then AFAIK no federal or state driving laws apply to you.
Further, why the distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons? Can you back that up Constitutionally?

	25-03-2002 03:41									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: One case was in the 1930's,

IIRC you are referring to the sawed off shotgun case, which was incorrectly decided.

	25-03-2002 03:43									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

--"One case was in the 1930's, another one was 1940's (I think), and another one in the 1970's."

The one in the '30s/'40s was US v. Miller (1939).
The other might be Lewis v. US (1980). However, that one pretty much restated Miller (as far as being extremely narrow in scope). The Second Amendment part of this ruling dealt with a law that forbid convicted felons from owning firearms.

Neither of them make a statement on the collective v. individual right of the Second Amendment, but the language of Miller (Lewis didn't really cover the issue) is more friendly to the individual right stance.

Edit:
For all that the gun-control crowd likes to deride the NRA for only using part of the Second Amendment, they (the gun-control crowd) are quite happy to selectively quote the Miller decision. I've seen a number of web sites (from HCI to the ACLU) quote "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" without noting that the full comment is "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." They also don't seem to note the "in the absence of any evidence" part, since Miller was murdered before the case came before the Supreme Court, and therefore no defense was presented.

Wraith
"They were really only teeny little A-bombs, honest!"
-- Charles Dart ("Startide Rising")

Last edited by Wraith on 25-03-2002 at 03:55

	25-03-2002 04:23									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Further, why the distinction between automatic and non-automatic weapons? Can you back that up Constitutionally?

No, more of a public safety issue. I wouldn't wish to see automatics being sold ever.

quote: I would think that licensing/registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy/9th Amendment - this is different from cars, which are driven on public roads. If you drive a car on your own land and aren't endangering anyone, then AFAIK no federal or state driving laws apply to you.

Funny that you bring this up and probably are against the whole idea of introducing a right to privacy which came up under Griswold and Roe. The right to privacy, btw, isn't a 9th Amendment issue (that was a concurring opinion), but rather due to a 'cornicopia' of amendments that guarentee those rights.

And no, I don't think that licensing or registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy, because I don't see how it could be a right to privacy issue. All doctors and lawyers are licensed.... I didn't say the federal government would do it.

	25-03-2002 04:24									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Personally, i think driving a car should be a right because, in Australia at least, most jobs seem to require a driver's license regardless of whether the job involves driving or not

My point is, what sort of logic enables something as innocuous as driving being a privilege whilst owning a gun is a right?

Surely, the sensible path is somewhere in the middle between no guns and all guns. The image we get of (the more redneck variety, at least) americans is one of having their own personal tank, or at least wanting to if they could afford it. There seems to be plenty of support in the U.S for unlimited quantity and types of arms. I don't know how true it is, but it sounds ridiculous. However, the suggestion i've heard about even policemen not having arms is just as ridiculous.

Australian gun laws have been toughened, and state laws have broadened the scope for police searches of individuals, which seems to have made it difficult for hoods to carry guns, and even knives. The gun laws seem to have at least increased the price of guns beyond the affordability of most gang members.

Nothing substitutes for common sense

	25-03-2002 04:30									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No, more of a public safety issue. I wouldn't wish to see automatics being sold ever.

Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and cell phones are also "public safety issues"

quote: Funny that you bring this up and probably are against the whole idea of introducing a right to privacy which came up under Griswold and Roe. The right to privacy, btw, isn't a 9th Amendment issue (that was a concurring opinion), but rather due to a 'cornicopia' of amendments that guarentee those rights.

Actually I agree with Griswold and, to an extent, Roe - I've even cited them a coupla times. Also I believe the phrase you are looking for is "penumbra of rights", although I don't think that was from Griswold, and I know it wasn't from Roe. I also think the 9th is a much better place to justify the right to privacy, anyway.

quote: And no, I don't think that licensing or registration would be unconstitutional under the right to privacy, because I don't see how it could be a right to privacy issue. All doctors and lawyers are licensed.... I didn't say the federal government would do it.

But you (I assume) accept the 14th Amendment, which would mean States couldn't violate privacy rights either.

	25-03-2002 04:31									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

--"My point is, what sort of logic enables something as innocuous as driving being a privilege whilst owning a gun is a right?"

Driving a car, as far as licencing purpose goes, involves using public roads (in the US, at least, you do not need a drivers license if you don't use the public roads). Therefore, the government has a valid claim in licensing issues. Using other people's property (in this case, the roads) is never a right.
Gun ownership does not inherently make use of anyone else's property. In fact, gun ownership in and of itself does not affect anyone else, period. It's just private property.

As far as Australian gun laws, I've seen some stats that show the tougher arms controls were actually detrimental as far as overall levels of crime were concerned. May have to dig those back up for specifics.

Wraith
"Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. "
- Lillian Hellman

	25-03-2002 04:32									#40
	Got spare money?

quote: Nothing substitutes for common sense

Except following the Constitution, of course

	25-03-2002 04:44									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: But you (I assume) accept the 14th Amendment, which would mean States couldn't violate privacy rights either.

And there is nothing that says licensing and registration violate privacy rights.

I point to examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.

quote: Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and cell phones are also "public safety issues"

Yes, and your point? I don't see anything wrong with the governments of the US to regulate cars, alcohol, cigarettes, or cell phones.

quote: Also I believe the phrase you are looking for is "penumbra of rights", although I don't think that was from Griswold, and I know it wasn't from Roe. I also think the 9th is a much better place to justify the right to privacy, anyway.

I believe it was a Griswold reference, which was used in Roe.

And using the 9th instead of 'penumbra' leads to states trampling over that right to privacy by the 10th Amendment.

	25-03-2002 04:51									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And there is nothing that says licensing and registration violate privacy rights.

Of course it doesn't - then again privacy isn't explicity mentioned in the Constitution either, but it's still a right.

quote: I point to examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.

And I'm not sure how people in those professions can be rqeuired to be registered.

quote: Yes, and your point? I don't see anything wrong with the governments of the US to regulate cars, alcohol, cigarettes, or cell phones.

So, to clarify, you believe anything that could possibly cause some sort of risk can be regulated??

quote: I believe it was a Griswold reference, which was used in Roe.

Maybe, I'd have to check.

quote: And using the 9th instead of 'penumbra' leads to states trampling over that right to privacy by the 10th Amendment.

Not if you accept the 14th Amendment, because the ability to restrict privacy becomes a right denied to the States. If you don't accept the 14th, it's irrelevant because in that case the 9th applies only to the federal government in terms of restrictions.

	25-03-2002 04:57									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I don't think there's any credible debate about whether I can say "What the ****" - what you refer to is not being able to call someone a mother****er, I believe.

No, the debate is whether the state can pass a law criminalizing the word "fvck," which I think it can since the justification of obscenity laws were based on profanity laws.

	25-03-2002 04:59									#44
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: No, the debate is whether the state can pass a law criminalizing the word "fvck," which I think it can since the justification of obscenity laws were based on profanity laws.

State profanity laws which really can in no way be Constitutionally justified, IF one accepts the 14th Amendment.
Federal anti-profanity laws would clearly be unconstitutional.

	25-03-2002 04:59									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ramo No, the debate is whether the state can pass a law criminalizing the word "fvck," which I think it can since the justification of obscenity laws were based on profanity laws.

I think Michigan has such a law, IIRC. In any case, I don't think that a challege to those laws has reach the SCOTUS.

	25-03-2002 05:02									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: And I'm not sure how people in those professions can be rqeuired to be registered.

Because licensing and registration aren't against privacy . It is very hard to make an argument that being licensed is against your privacy. No one, to my knowledge, has tried to make the argument in court that being licensed and registered is against the right to privacy, and if they have, it has been thrown out.

quote: So, to clarify, you believe anything that could possibly cause some sort of risk can be regulated??

Exactly... that is the whole idea behind the FDA.

quote: Not if you accept the 14th Amendment, because the ability to restrict privacy becomes a right denied to the States. If you don't accept the 14th, it's irrelevant because in that case the 9th applies only to the federal government in terms of restrictions.

No it doesn't... even if you accept that the 9th and 10th Amendments both apply to the states, nothing in the Constitution explicitly states that privacy is a right.

9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 9th says that rights not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that people don't have those rights.

The 10th says that powers not given to the US by the Constitution, nor taken away from the states, are given to the states.

So the states have the power to restrict the right to privacy if you believe the 9th gives you that power instead of the penumbra.

	25-03-2002 05:04									#47
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Actually the SCOTUS has already ruled to an extent on profanity.

I can't recall the citation, but during Vietnam someone wore a jacket with the words "**** the Draft" on it into a courtroom. He was held in contempt, Circuit Court affirmed, SCOTUS overturned.

	25-03-2002 05:08									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I can't recall the citation, but during Vietnam someone wore a jacket with the words "**** the Draft" on it into a courtroom.

That's an amusing case but other than affirming the emotive power of speech I don't see how the case applies here unless you are going to argue that you don't have a captive audience when you let loose with a string of profanity.

PS He didn't wear the jacket into the courtroom. He took it off before going in. He wasn't charged with contempt either because that charge would have stuck.

	25-03-2002 05:09									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"My point is, what sort of logic enables something as innocuous as driving being a privilege whilst owning a gun is a right?" Driving a car, as far as licencing purpose goes, involves using public roads (in the US, at least, you do not need a drivers license if you don't use the public roads). Therefore, the government has a valid claim in licensing issues. Using other people's property (in this case, the roads) is never a right. Gun ownership does not inherently make use of anyone else's property. In fact, gun ownership in and of itself does not affect anyone else, period. It's just private property.

quote: As far as Australian gun laws, I've seen some stats that show the tougher arms controls were actually detrimental as far as overall levels of crime were concerned. May have to dig those back up for specifics.

Crime in Australia has been increasing steadily for the last 50 years or so, so unless there is a large jump in crime, i don't think you can pin it on the gun laws. Crime statistics in Australia are manipulated badly in Australia, so conclusions based on them are difficult to prove. The big problem is the rise of gun culture among minoroty groups, and the invulnerability to the law that minors have. A 17 year old boy knows he can bash and rub and stab and kill with little fear of repurcussions. That in itself relegates the gun laws to being a smaller influence on the statistics.

	25-03-2002 05:10									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Because licensing and registration aren't against privacy . It is very hard to make an argument that being licensed is against your privacy. No one, to my knowledge, has tried to make the argument in court that being licensed and registered is against the right to privacy, and if they have, it has been thrown out.

There's also a difference between being a registered surgeon who is responsible for peoples' lives and being forced to register a piece of harmless private property.

quote: Exactly... that is the whole idea behind the FDA.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I cannot see a Constitutional justification for federal regulation of any object, unless it is on federal property or property that is substantially federally funded, or if it LEGITIMATELY affects interstate commerce.

quote: The 9th says that rights not enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that people don't have those rights. The 10th says that powers not given to the US by the Constitution, nor taken away from the states, are given to the states. So the states have the power to restrict the right to privacy if you believe the 9th gives you that power instead of the penumbra.

No - the 9th basically means that even though every right isn't specifically named people still have these rights. By logical extension the federal government can't infringe upon these rights, and, assuming an acceptance of the 14th, neither can the States.

	25-03-2002 05:12									#51
	Remove this text

quote: That's an amusing case but other than affirming the emotive power of speech I don't see how the case applies here unless you are going to argue that you don't have a captive audience when you let loose with a string of profanity. PS He didn't wear the jacket into the courtroom. He took it off before going in. He wasn't charged with contempt either because that charge would have stuck.

Then you are more familiar with the case than I - I've run into it once in passing, and it just popped into my head. What was he charged with, out of curiosity?

My point was simply that SCOTUS has made at least one ruling dealing with profanity.

	25-03-2002 05:18									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: There's also a difference between being a registered surgeon who is responsible for peoples' lives and being forced to register a piece of harmless private property.

Not enough difference to make it legal to licence one and not the other.

quote: No - the 9th basically means that even though every right isn't specifically named people still have these rights. By logical extension the federal government can't infringe upon these rights, and, assuming an acceptance of the 14th, neither can the States.

Yes, that is true... but the 10th states that powers that aren't taken from the states by the Constitution can be wielded by the states.

How can you say that the 9th allows any right that the people can think of to be their own? You'll have people saying they have the right to kill for certain purposes (no where does the Constitution say that life is protected - AFAIK). The 9th is a very vague amendment, and using it to justify privacy, I think, only means that someone can use the 10th to justify taking it away.

	25-03-2002 05:18									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: My point was simply that SCOTUS has made at least one ruling dealing with profanity.

The case was dealing with a Court judgement on a charge of contempt, not state laws on profanity.

	25-03-2002 05:20									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The case was dealing with a Court judgement on a charge of contempt, not state laws on profanity.

Damn it. You people are going to make me actually look up what the man was charged with, aren't you?

Edit: Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code § 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "**** the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse.

Cohen v. California

	25-03-2002 07:38									#55
	Put an end to popups!

--"And there is nothing that says licensing and registration violate privacy rights."

Doesn't mean they should be, though...

Lawyers I can kind of see the point. They've got to argue law in the courts, after all, and those are owned by the government. Same for teaching, but only as far as public schools go. I'm also not sure that the latter is a federal certification.

You're also kind of missing the point. Practicing any specific profession is not a right...

--"No one, to my knowledge, has tried to make the argument in court that being licensed and registered is against the right to privacy,"

I don't know of any current laws that require you to register to be able to exercise your rights, either. If you were required to, for instance, register with the federal government before exercising your right of free speech (say, writing a paper against a specific policy), then I think a right-to-privacy argument might just crop up somewhere.

--"Exactly... that is the whole idea behind the FDA."

You do realize that absolutely everything carries some degree of risk, right? Your logic there gives the federal government blanket authorization to regulate anything and everything.

--"nothing in the Constitution explicitly states that privacy is a right."

So what? This is why the 9th Amendment was added. More to the point, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government a blanket right to invade privacy. The closest is the census requirement, and that's nothing more than an enumeration of people.

--"Crime statistics in Australia are manipulated badly in Australia, so conclusions based on them are difficult to prove"

Well, this is often the case. I'd have to search out the results if I really cared to press the argument, but it's just not that big a deal.

Wraith
"I only drink because the government needs the tax revenue"

	25-03-2002 07:46									#56
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Doesn't mean they should be, though...

Your opinion. I don't think that licensing and registration violates the right to privacy.

	25-03-2002 08:02									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Would you if writers had to be licensed, or reporters?

	25-03-2002 08:13									#58
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I wouldn't see how that would violate the right to privacy.

	25-03-2002 08:15									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"Medical studies show how phony the claim that guns prevent crime is, but you'll never see them widely publicised" Actually, you see them publicised all the time. The problem is that they're not being done by the right people. Why should doctors be expected to have the kind of criminology training necessary to performe good studies on this subject? Gary Kleck, as an example, is a criminologist, and publishes in peer-review criminology journals. Reports done by doctors about criminology, published in medical journals (where they will not be subject to peer review on non-medical claims) are not exactly a reliable source of information. Nevertheless, most of the claims cited in the media on the gun-control side of the debate come from studies done on such a basis. Edit: As an example, here is a draft version of a chapter from one of Kleck's books, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control". Wraith I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Why would you need a criminologist to perform such studies? What is needed is good study design and doctors are quite able to manage that.

	25-03-2002 08:17									#60
	Remove this text

So, basically you have no problem with the federal government requiring people in pretty much every profession to register and give information to the government? That's truly scary.

What, to you is the right to privacy then, if its not the right to your own personal information, and the right to be secure in your person, job,roperty without the government seizing and regulating such things at will?