The Politics of Strip Clubs: Are Lap Dances Free Speech?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:57:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  The Politics of Strip Clubs: Are Lap Dances Free Speech?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Do you believe that lap dances qualify as protected free speech?
#1
Yes.
 
#2
No.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: The Politics of Strip Clubs: Are Lap Dances Free Speech?  (Read 6045 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,704
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2007, 04:26:48 PM »

I'm going to assume he's a fighter for personal freedom, something very lacking in this country (see Hillary Clinton)
Logged
AkSaber
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,315
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2007, 06:37:28 PM »

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: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2007, 11:19:13 PM »

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
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,704
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2007, 03:32:22 AM »

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
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2007, 04:47:33 AM »

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
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2007, 10:29:47 PM »

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
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2007, 11:23:01 PM »

if lap dancing is "free speech" why must one pay for them?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2007, 12:05:36 AM »

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
Rookie
**
Posts: 121


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2007, 06:01:03 PM »

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
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2007, 08:47:48 AM »

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
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2007, 04:11:06 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2007, 04:25:24 PM »

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
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2007, 08:19:16 PM »

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
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2007, 08:54:10 PM »

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
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2007, 09:32:57 PM »

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
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2007, 09:38:51 PM »

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 (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2007, 10:28:27 PM »

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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this 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.
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2007, 12:35:44 AM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2007, 08:16:16 AM »

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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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 (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2007, 12:31:45 PM »

I take it then that you hold to the doctrine of  legal positivism rather than that of natural law.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2007, 12:55:51 PM »

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
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2007, 01:49:24 PM »

Thanks for proving my point, guys.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2007, 01:52:15 PM »

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
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2007, 01:56:41 PM »

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
useful idiot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,720


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2007, 03:55:32 AM »


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


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 14 queries.