From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 18:42:32 MDT
On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 06:54 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Frankly I am shocked that it turns out that I am on the more liberal
> end of the debate than Harvey.
Yes, it's quite disturbing to both of us! :-)
> The concept of "indecent exposure" as a
> crime is as much a legislation of morality as legislation declaring
> sodomy to be a crime. I know that Harvey is against the latter being
> illegal, but why id he for the former, an act which most people would
> consider to be a less serious act. I had no idea Harvey was a clothes
> prude.
> If a woman can't walk down the street with her shirt off, how do you
> ever expect to get equal rights for gays?
I am not against public nudity. But performing lewd and lascivious acts
in the presence of people who object is initiation of force. If this
were in a common public area, you might argue differently. But these
people deliberately went into the church and performed this stunt to
annoy and get a response from the churchgoers. They are deliberately
trying to disrupt the activities of others, rather than pursuing their
own activities. In the spirit of freedom and pursuit of happiness, it
seem clear that the perpetrators are the initiators of force and the
churchgoers were the victims. This was clearly an attack on the church
and it is the churchgoers who want to be left alone to pursue their own
freedoms.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:32 MST