From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 17:05:36 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> I am not against public nudity. But performing lewd and lascivious acts
> in the presence of people who object is initiation of force.
I just stepped in to this debate, so forgive me if I'm taking this out of
context. But if you're arguing that the performance of lewd and
lascivious acts in the presence of people who object ought to be
*regulated* as initiation of force, then you'll have to define which acts
are lewd/lascivious and therefore initation of force.
Furthermore, it seems to me that there is no way to adequately restrict
this definition in a way that correctly captures the sort of thing to
which people actually object, (lewd language, anyone?) but agrees with
anything approximating a free society.
It has historically been argued that arguing for communism is, on top of
everything else, rude. Whether or not you agree with this, I think you
must agree that many Americans would be offended if you went out in the
park and began to argue for top-down communism as a solution to our
problems. Does that justify rules against advocating offensive political
views?
How about a gay kiss?
How about a kiss between people of different races?
What counts as lewd/lascivious, and what doesn't? We'd either have to
argue, against what I take to be obvious facts, that very little is
lewd/lascivious/offensive, or that a great deal of behavior matches this
definition, and that we must therefore be highly regulated in speech and
behavior.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:42 MST