Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (22127)	11/3/2004 2:49:22 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Kodiak, reading your messages on this subject makes me wonder if you truly recognize that the constitution is a LIMIT on the power of democratic "majorities" to control the actions of the individual. If you do understand that concept and agree with it, then the issue is not whether the majority should be able to decide what others may or may not do; the only question is when and under what circumstances the majority may NOT exercise that power. In your nude dancing example, the courts have decided. They have, as always, carefully protected the individual's 1ST Amendment rights to freedom of expression while allowing the state to further its important function of regulating dangerous behavior and controlling non-constitutionally protected behavior. The result is that even with "free expression" dancing and nudity activities, the state can "zone" such activities so that they are kept separate from schools, neighborhoods and other places where they do not fit in. In addition the state can prohibit "obscene" behaviors that are sexual in nature. They can, therefor, limit commercial "lap dancing" if that is the decision of the majority. So the courts have interpreted the rights in exactly the manner you suggested they should. The result is a protection of arguable free expression rights without limiting the power of the state to zone for such activities and to prevent acts that clearly fit within the ambit of sex acts.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (22127)	11/3/2004 2:50:40 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Your analysis, while technically correct, ignores the concepts of "inalienable rights" and "self-evident truths". In your scheme, if the people of hick-townsville want to disallow dancing around a boiling cauldron and chanting spells, punishable by death, there is nothing stopping them. The concept of modern democracy is not the same as tyranny of majority. ST PS I love your name :-) PPS I'll answer to your other post when I can type more.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (22127)	11/3/2004 4:08:05 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

I fully understand your point but I think mine is (possibly) being missed by semantics. My question is do we "NEED" our government to legislate morality? The question is NOT is it possible or probable? Local zoning is understandable but also gets used by intolerant people to fulfill their pursuit of "morality enforcement" on others. There are extremely obvious issues with respect to forbidding the discharging of lethal weapons within a city's limits. There is also a very big difference in what a local community chooses as it's "community standards" and the federal government implementing a similar "national standard". Even with democratic majorities, local communities still have limits in what or who they can censor. Simply because you have a majority does not imply that you can "do whatever you please". For example, just because your town is mostly made up of one religion does not allow you to forbid other religions from practicing within your town. There are differences between creating laws that have the intention of keeping a community's rights or well being at it's core (no parking on the street overnight or no parking on a sidewalk) and a law that intentionally discriminates (no parking of church owned vehicles). Can the town create such legislation? Sure, until someone challenges it. Many states have created legislation restricting what the local community can and can't implement in the way of discriminatory zoning laws.