Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 06:35:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Torie, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  The Politics of Strip Clubs: Are Lap Dances Free Speech?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: Do you believe that lap dances qualify as protected free speech?
Yes.   -16 (42.1%)
No.   -22 (57.9%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: The Politics of Strip Clubs: Are Lap Dances Free Speech?  (Read 4054 times)
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72524
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2007, 04:26:48 pm »
Ignore

I'm going to assume he's a fighter for personal freedom, something very lacking in this country (see Hillary Clinton)
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
AkSaber
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6285
Seychelles


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2007, 06:37:28 pm »
Ignore

Free speech? I'm not so sure. But I probably would have voted in favor for the stripper. My reason being is that something about this case really pisses me off.

These days, gangs are running amok. They are murdering children, innocent people living their lives, and police officers. Drug dealers are ruining the lives of children and their families. Child predators abound and some who rape children only get a few months jail time.

Does any of that enrage these high-and-mighty phonies? No. Not one bit. Instead, what do they use our police departments for? To scare consenting adults. As long as they can stick their nose in other peoples' business, they're happy.

I wonder sometimes, if these people went after violent criminals with the same zeal as the go after consenting adults, how much better off our cities would be?
Logged
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4402
Italy
View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2007, 11:19:13 pm »
Ignore

This judge should run for Governor of Oregon, since he is clearly one of the greatest Freedom Fighters in the state, and then hopefully he could run for President. I'd vote for him even if he's a Republican!

You would vote for someone for president because he declared lap dances to be free speech?

Welcome to Atlas Forum.  Enjoy your stay here.
Logged

black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72524
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2007, 03:32:22 am »
Ignore

Free speech? I'm not so sure. But I probably would have voted in favor for the stripper. My reason being is that something about this case really pisses me off.

These days, gangs are running amok. They are murdering children, innocent people living their lives, and police officers. Drug dealers are ruining the lives of children and their families. Child predators abound and some who rape children only get a few months jail time.

Does any of that enrage these high-and-mighty phonies? No. Not one bit. Instead, what do they use our police departments for? To scare consenting adults. As long as they can stick their nose in other peoples' business, they're happy.

I wonder sometimes, if these people went after violent criminals with the same zeal as the go after consenting adults, how much better off our cities would be?

Very well said!
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2007, 04:47:33 am »
Ignore

Yes, as are paid sex and drug use.  Though these things are additionally and alternately protectd by the Right to Privacy.

Please explain how.  Find me the clause that states we have 'the right to privacy'.

'Clause'?

you claim the Constitution protects the 'right to privacy'.  It does protect certain aspects of privacy, but show me where in the document privacy is protected in its entirety.

I never said anything about what was 'in the document'.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2007, 10:29:47 pm »
Ignore

Of course, I've never been of the opinion that the Constitution did a very good job of enumerating or properly prioritizing what our rights should be, anyway.

So, in other words, if you had the power, you would choose (or people who agree with you at least) to decide what our rights should be, because the Constitution didn't do it "correctly".  Nice.

As to the topic of this thread - lap dances aren't free speech.  I suspect this one gets overturned up the appeals chain in Oregon.
Logged
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2007, 11:23:01 pm »
Ignore

if lap dancing is "free speech" why must one pay for them?
Logged


Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2007, 12:05:36 am »
Ignore

Of course, I've never been of the opinion that the Constitution did a very good job of enumerating or properly prioritizing what our rights should be, anyway.

So, in other words, if you had the power, you would choose (or people who agree with you at least) to decide what our rights should be, because the Constitution didn't do it "correctly".  Nice.

Is there something wrong with looking at the Constitution with a critical eye? I wouldn't call any of the Founding Fathers infallible, as you suggest.
Logged
DuEbrithil
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2007, 06:01:03 pm »
Ignore

Of course, I've never been of the opinion that the Constitution did a very good job of enumerating or properly prioritizing what our rights should be, anyway.

So, in other words, if you had the power, you would choose (or people who agree with you at least) to decide what our rights should be, because the Constitution didn't do it "correctly".  Nice.

Is there something wrong with looking at the Constitution with a critical eye? I wouldn't call any of the Founding Fathers infallible, as you suggest.
no, but they've done a pretty good job so far
Logged

Economically Conservative----><----Socially Liberal

Quote from: johnfoss
If you ignore science, it's like you're trying to convince us of Intelligent Design...
Quote from: Mr. Carlton (WKRP in Cincinnati)
As God is my witness...I thought turkeys could fly
Top Thrill Dragster: The tallest and fastest RED roller coaster in the world
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2007, 08:47:48 am »
Ignore

Of course, I've never been of the opinion that the Constitution did a very good job of enumerating or properly prioritizing what our rights should be, anyway.

So, in other words, if you had the power, you would choose (or people who agree with you at least) to decide what our rights should be, because the Constitution didn't do it "correctly".  Nice.

As to the topic of this thread - lap dances aren't free speech.  I suspect this one gets overturned up the appeals chain in Oregon.

Why do you think the constitution is a good one, SS?  It really isn't - unless, of course, we construe it to gaurantee Privacy and Speech.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2007, 04:11:06 pm »
Ignore

Of course, I've never been of the opinion that the Constitution did a very good job of enumerating or properly prioritizing what our rights should be, anyway.

So, in other words, if you had the power, you would choose (or people who agree with you at least) to decide what our rights should be, because the Constitution didn't do it "correctly".  Nice.

Is there something wrong with looking at the Constitution with a critical eye? I wouldn't call any of the Founding Fathers infallible, as you suggest.
no, but they've done a pretty good job so far

That's neither here nor there. If there's something missing in the Constitution, it should be added. If there's something in the Constitution that shouldn't be there, it should be taken out. Any other position is an appeal to tradition fallacy.
Logged
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2007, 04:25:24 pm »
Ignore

The present case is considerably more difficult than most previous posters have assumed. Let us remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the rights of filmmakers to portray sexual acts. It is true, the court has upheld limits on "obscene" speech, but the obscenity bar is an exceptionally high one. Certainly, if a filmmaker produced a movie depicting a strip club, then it would be unconstitutional to censor the film. On the other hand, the underlying activities that were themselves filmed could be considered crimes. This is indeed a curious dichotomy, which the Supreme Court has not quite resolved.
Logged
MooMooMoo, Amith!
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12592
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2007, 08:19:16 pm »
Ignore

Not free speech, but the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a right implied in the constitution, just like judicial review is an implied and inherint power for the courts.
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2007, 08:54:10 pm »
Ignore

Not free speech, but the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a right implied in the constitution, just like judicial review is an implied and inherint power for the courts.
The Constitution expressly states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... arising under this Constitution." The plain meaning of this clause is that the judiciary has the power to determine whether legislation violates the Constitution, because any charge that an act of Congress violates the Constitution is obviously a case "arising under this Constitution." Thus, even though the Constitution does not use the term "judicial review," it grants the power using equivalently strong words explicitly (not implicitly, as is often asserted). I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."
Logged
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2007, 09:32:57 pm »
Ignore

Not free speech, but the right to privacy. The right to privacy is a right implied in the constitution, just like judicial review is an implied and inherint power for the courts.
The Constitution expressly states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... arising under this Constitution." The plain meaning of this clause is that the judiciary has the power to determine whether legislation violates the Constitution, because any charge that an act of Congress violates the Constitution is obviously a case "arising under this Constitution." Thus, even though the Constitution does not use the term "judicial review," it grants the power using equivalently strong words explicitly (not implicitly, as is often asserted). I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.
Logged


IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18787
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2007, 09:38:51 pm »
Ignore

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

Don't you mean the 4th Amendment? The 14th doesn't seem to have much to do with privacy.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28477
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2007, 10:28:27 pm »
Ignore

I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

Quote from: IV Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

That's the procedural due process half of the right to privacy, as for whether the substantive due process half is also found in the constitution depends to some extent on one's interpretation of the fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments as to whether they add substantive due process.  Given the wording of the ninth, I'd say that those who would argue against substantive due process need to show cause why it does not exist.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Southern Patriot
DWPerry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1693
Puerto Rico


Political Matrix
E: 7.03, S: -6.26

View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2007, 12:35:44 am »
Ignore

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

Don't you mean the 4th Amendment? The 14th doesn't seem to have much to do with privacy.
From the Roe V Wade decision
"MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.....
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy,"
Logged


Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2007, 08:16:16 am »
Ignore

I would challenge anyone to find an equally explicit statement in the Constitution that guarantees a right that is equivalent to the so-called "right to privacy."

Quote from: IV Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
The Fourth Amendment guarantees privacy in specific instances: specifically, it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and even reasonable searches and seizures when made without a warrant. However, it does not guarantee a generic or universal right to privacy that includes, for example, the right to use contraceptive devices or the right to abortion.

Quote
That's the procedural due process half of the right to privacy, as for whether the substantive due process half is also found in the constitution depends to some extent on one's interpretation of the fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments as to whether they add substantive due process.  Given the wording of the ninth, I'd say that those who would argue against substantive due process need to show cause why it does not exist.
One can address the two amendments separately.

The unenumerated rights that the Ninth Amendment refers to encompass everything that the federal government is not authoirized to do. Thus, since the federal government is not authorized to regulate intrastate commerce, there is an unenumerated right against federal regulation of intrastate commerce. The Ninth Amendment simply means that, just because only some restrictions on federal power are explicitly mentioned, it does not follow that no other restrictions exist. Obviously, one cannot sensibly incorporate this amendment with respect to the states, just as one cannot incorporate the Tenth Amendment.

As to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: substantive due process is a contradiction in terms. Due process is about exactly that: process. From the time of the Magna Carta until the nineteenth century, the meaning of the term "due process of law" was perfectly clear: it meant merely the process required by the law. It was not interpreted to include any notion of "fairness" or substantive rights, at least until Chief Justice Roger Taney came along and twisted the meaning of the clause in Dred Scott. Thus, when the Constitution states that no-one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it simply means that any such deprivation must be in accordance with the law, rather than arbitrarily imposed by the executive or judiciary.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28477
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2007, 12:31:45 pm »
Ignore

I take it then that you hold to the doctrine of  legal positivism rather than that of natural law.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18787
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2007, 12:55:51 pm »
Ignore

I believe that most people "find" the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment, as in the Roe vs Wade decision. I could possibly see using the 9th Amendment to support lap dances, easier than the 14th.

Don't you mean the 4th Amendment? The 14th doesn't seem to have much to do with privacy.
From the Roe V Wade decision
"MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.....
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy,"

Ah, I see where your misinterpretation lies. The fourth amendment is what many suppose actually grants the right to privacy. However, the bill of rights (first ten amendments) didn't apply to the individual states before the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth doesn't really grant any new rights, only extends existing ones in the federal constitution to the states.
Logged

MooMooMoo, Amith!
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12592
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2007, 01:49:24 pm »
Ignore

Thanks for proving my point, guys.
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11408
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2007, 01:52:15 pm »
Ignore

I won't argue legal niceties here.. but suffice to say I struggle to imagine how a lap dance could be figured as "speech" - perhaps we need a new word to clarify and separate this from speech - "Free rights to 'performance' regardless of the nature of said performance on Private Property" or something of that nature. (Yes, I'm very aware of how that could be read - but I not bothered right now to go into any detail.)
Logged



Quote
Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws  Feb 4
As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'
MooMooMoo, Amith!
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12592
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2007, 01:56:41 pm »
Ignore

Would making arm pit fart noises in front of everyone count as free speech? What about performing a gay marriage or an abortion in front of the White House? Would there be any civil tort remedies? Discuss.
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
useful idiot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3678


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2007, 03:55:32 am »
Ignore

This guy is seriously a judge?

How can you be surprised? Being a whackjob is almost a qualification for becoming a judge.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines