Re: Boohoohoo!!! Waaaaaaaaaah!!!

Matthew Hennig <matth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:9T2jgo59Iap0N3l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Matthew Hennig <matth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Trevor Zion Bauknight <trev@xxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:trev-3E6039.01525010102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> In article <Xns96EA10A59A4DAmatthaggiescom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Matthew Hennig <matth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> My rights have been violated!!!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/08/
>>>>> >> wt ee0 8.xml
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The passengers who complained could at least investigate the
>>>>> > purchase of lives...maybe in duty-free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think her shirt is appropriate, especially in an environment
>>>>> that children are likely to see it?
>>>>
>>>> Spare me. The children. Children will be using the f-word by the
>>>> time they're in middle school or earlier, and no, there aren't many
>>>> kids flying solo. As a parent, it's your obligation to teach your
>>>> kids about profanity, but trying to shield them from it is hopeless.
>>>> Reporting people to the authoritahs because of their t-shirts is
>>>> absurd...
>>>
>>> Do you think that's appropriate to wear in a public place? If a
>>> parent doesn't want their child exposed to that sort of thing, don't
>>> you think they should be able to reasonably expect that in a
>>> airplane?
>>
>> No. I don't want my child exposed to religion - should I be able to
>> reasonably expect that in a airplane?
>
> Religion (at least for now) does not have any laws about meeting
> community standards of obscenity like the woman's shirt does.

Obscenity has a very specific definition in this context:

>From Miller v. California

(1) the proscribed material must depict or describe sexual conduct in a
patently offensive way

(2) the conduct must be specifically described in the law

(3) the work must, taken as a whole, lack serious value and must appeal to
a prurient interest in sex.

I certainly don't think this shirt qualifies in any way as legal obscenity.


> While you
> may not like the idea of religion, its not quite the same thing here.

Why isn't it? Why do some people have the right to be protected from what
they find offensive, and not others? Equal protection under the law anyone?

>>> Well, hell,
>>> why not just let people go around naked in the airplane, no harm in
>>> that either!
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> You know not what you ask for here. The number of hawt <<<<<<<<< nawt.

I know exactly what I ask for - I as for my rights to be enforced, and only
my rights as specified in the Constitution. The fact that I may hate the
results of freedom doesn't make me wish it to go away.

--
Aaron
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bowing Out of Debate
    ... > enjoy it is that I was raised a very strict Christian, ... The requirement for faith is not just appropriate for Religion. ... Law, personal religious belief should be no defence for not observing it. ... But I understand your point of view and the reasons why you hold it. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • The Fallacy of Shared Values
    ... application of sharia law in Britain in the interest of social ... Western or Judeo-Christian societies reveals very little evidence of ... religion holds in matters of state. ... Muslims are viewed as superior to and more privileged than ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Blocks from Bobs Old Haunts
    ... the SCLC had a right to get their beliefs incorporated into law. ... Christian groups to get their beliefs incorporated into law. ... Religion can be used in a variety of ways. ... couples to marry each other and the Rabbi has performed several marriage ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Dear IDers:
    ... It's the law of the land that makes it so, including multiple judicial rulings, this one by an "activist" conservative Republican judge. ... The constitution's meaning doesn't change, ... Judicial opinion about what the constitution means can change this way and that. ... We know this because the enactors of A1 were concerned with preventing the national government from establishing a national religion. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >> ID is not a common question, and the answer to it isn't sufficiently ... >> Chalk up first amendment law to the list of things you don't know. ... >> rules for disallowing religious laws is purpose. ... It does not mention religion and I propose ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading