A couple of court cases on freedom

[aunaturelone]

Some thoughts on freedom:

quote:

---

.... The drafters of the Constitution knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Justice Anthony Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas

---

quote:

---

But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority?s opinion may inspire fear. Any word... that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance.

Federal District Court of Rhode Island; Fricke v. Lynch

---

So much for Stu's belief that something ought to probhibited just because some people find it offensive.

[aunaturelone]

Some thoughts on freedom:

quote:

---

.... The drafters of the Constitution knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Justice Anthony Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas

---

quote:

---

But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority?s opinion may inspire fear. Any word... that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance.

Federal District Court of Rhode Island; Fricke v. Lynch

---

So much for Stu's belief that something ought to probhibited just because some people find it offensive.

[Jochanaan]

What were the issues in these two cases, aunaturelone?

[aunaturelone]

Lawrence V Texas was the recent case where the Supreme court struck down law prohibiting gays from engaging in gay sex. I thought it appropriate here because IMHO laws against nudity are also cases where "laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress". Kennedy (and a 6 member majority) strongly supported the rights of people to challenge those laws in the courts.

Fickle v. Lynch was a case where a girl was kicked out of school classes after being outed (by a teacher no less) as a lesbian. The reason given was that her being a lesbian might cause apprehension, disturbance or offense among the other students. The court clearly ruled that you can't prohibit something merely because it makes someone else uncomfortable. Stu, OTOH, seems to think personal discomfort is full and sufficient cause to require that something be prohibited.

I'm glad the US has a different legal philosophy than Britain, even if the country is much more socially conservative.

While neither case is nudity related, both could well be used someday as precedent for challenging laws prohibiting it.

[Rex]

Please don't accept Stu's attitudes as necessarily typical of Britain. Stu has been very open with us about various aspects of his life, and he is a most untypical person, with some most untypical views.
It frequently happens that British laws, [and American, and Australian, etc], are so out of touch with reality, that it's almost unbelievable that so-called intelligent people can pretend to continue to have respect for the respective legal systems.