Burquas for attractive women...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I gave it several times in the other thread and in this one, if they made an effort to desexualize it (ensuring that only those of age could see it for instance *), then the government overstepped. If they made no effort and were doing it as "shock" protest in the hopes that those who most would deem inappropriate would see it, then they were open for arrest.
When ruling on pornography the SCOTUS actually said, "We'll know it when we see it." This is much the same thing. Did they make any effort to be responsible towards others or were they attempting to "shock" with sexual imagery? That is where my questions fall.
*This is another for instance and shouldn't be taken as the whole and only example.
Why should it be illegal in the home of the free to express ones ideas using the shock of sexual imagery?
I am for freedom, and if you get offended, look the other way.
If peopel would not be such drama queens, there would be no shock.
When I was 16 I was in Sweeden, I went to the beach with a co-ed crowd that included some very hot girls. We canoed to an island in the north sea and the other American guys and I went into the woods to put our suits on. When we returned we found the Sweedish girls stark naked.
There was nuthing sexual about it to the Swedish. Clearly I had to get used to it, and get over by boner, but after an hour or so, I got comfortable.
It really isn't about "offense", it is more like NC-17 movies. People should have the ability to make the movies, and people with the ability to understand and make the choice the capability of seeing the movie, but one should show some responsibility towards others as they do with such things as pornography and NC-17 flicks.
It would be silly to suggest that such standards as "no children in porn" are just cultural and shouldn't be restricted because they have a "right" to depict what they want. The SCOTUS already ruled on that one, as well as this one. Did they make any effort to desexualize or was it, as I ask, "shock" protest designed to shock people with sexual imagery? If it was "shock" protest, it clearly is sexualized (that is the point of it) and therefore the SCOTUS ruled it can be proscribed.
This is where the line is drawn.
It is clearly not pornographic to merely be naked in public.
It is, however, sexually charged if the point is to shock with sexual images. Again, did they make any effort to desexualize it?
For instance:
1. Did they get permits?
2. With those permits did they section off the beach in that area?
3. Did the police cross lines that they used to section off the beach in order to interrupt and detain people who were responsibly exercising their first amendment rights?
It appears to me that they did none of these things and were attempting to "shock" with sexual images, mostly because you have no evidence otherwise.
My position is that they shoudl not have to do that! It is much more simple to have the people who are going to get offended look the other way and stop trying to control others so much!
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
I understand that... That does not make it right. I want America to be FREE, I am for FREEDOM and less government intervention in our lives.
Okay, so my point was legally sound and you decided to try to mock it exactly why?
The SCOTUS has ruled that requiring some level of responsibility towards others is not an undue burden or a restriction on their speech. Had they followed the law they would not have had the "problem" (I believe it was their goal and not a problem) that they encountered.
I disagree with your interperation of the S.Ct, and under my interpertation I still disagree with the S.Ct..
Are you for freedom?
I am for constitutionally sound government. And your disagreement with the SCOTUS doesn't change that the police were within their "rights" to arrest these people because they didn't work to use their rights responsibly.
They should, and would be, allowed to do as they wanted if they had simply been responsible. Instead they sought to "shock" people with sexual images and got exactly what they planned would happen. Nobody suggests they should be put in prison for this, nor will they be put in prison for it. However, the line was drawn by the SCOTUS, they chose to cross it and will suffer some small consequence for their action.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
This is incredibly funny since you have also aligned yourself in lock-step with the Democrat Party.
The police were within there rights... I agree... But the Government, dispite what the S.Ct. said, in my opinion, was not within its rights to pass such a law. Just because something is the law, does not make it right!
I am for personal FREEDOM.
This is incredibly funny since you have also aligned yourself in lock-step with the Democrat Party.
As you can see, I am illistrating that the Liberal position is more often the FREEDOM based side!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Sure, freedom from responsibility.
Sure, freedom from responsibility.
Freedom to dress or not dress how you like!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You mean the freedom not to be responsible to keep your privates from public view.
Boring. People who flash children are wrong, people who effectively use that same method of "shock" that the flasher uses as "protest" are also wrong. The goal of this "protest" was, IMO, to be caught and arrested so they could get people to talk about this "issue", it is however very moot.
Your first assertion was it wasn't constitutional, you cited a decision by the SCOTUS, I used that decision to show it was constitutional under that definition and used examples as to why.
The reality was, if these people wanted to do this they have the capability to, they chose instead to attempt to be "shocking", just like a flasher does, with their sexuality.
I personally do not belive it is constitutional.... I know that at some level the S.Ct disagrees with me.
To me its about ballancing freedoms, the freedom to dress how you please v. the freedom to not be offended. I am sick of people getting "offended" so easily and using that to control others.
Its easy for a person who get offended easily to look the other way or just toughen up and stop being such prisses!....