>> First of all, the pursuit of happiness isn't in the Constitution, that is, it ain't the law. That's in the Declaration
Of course I know that.
>> which is, for these purposes, a meaningless document.
What?!! Now surprise would be an understatment for what I feel hearing this. The Declaration of Independence provides the context for which the constitution was developed. It is every bit important when it comes to interpreting the constitution.
I stand by my statement, though I admit I am a libertarian by nature.
>> Why should what you call a "live theatre or dance performance", assuming it involves taking off most of all of one's clothing, be protected, CONSTITUTIONALLY?
OK, I walk through the logic.
The courts have interpreted freedom of speech to mean freedom of expression, because that is the most reasonable interpretation of the 1st Amendment. A literal interpretation would mean, among other things, that those who are born without the gift of speech are deprived from a most important right. I hope you are not going to argue that before someone is allowed to act out or perform their speech they have to cut off their own tongue.
Assuming you agree with the above, which renders speech, writing, acting, painting, etc as all being forms of expression protected by the First Amendment, then the question becomes this: how do you limit nude performance on stage without limiting rights of "legitimate" performers? In other words, how do you legislate which performances are protected and which ones are not?
ST
PS I am every bit for the Second Amendment. |
