Well, I started this topic, so I'm disappointed in some of the defeatist attitudes posted since then.
The First Amendment, like every other part of the Constitution, encompasses not only the words themselves, but also every Supreme Court decision since 1789 that has discussed the First Amendment. No law is self-executing, and every law is subject to interpretation by the courts. Only the ignorant and bigoted want a utopian, impractical system where everybody has the same opinion, automatically, about what the law means. Who interprets the First Amendment? Barney Fife? After all, the internet, radio and television, movies, photographs, the New York Times and X-rated tee shirts aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, are they? Would you ban them like nudity itself?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Free Speech protects not only thoughts and comments, but also "physical action." So, you can pass out pamphlets, use a loud-speaker, march, sign petitions, hold signs, and generally do anything non-violent to protest any law. Here, non-sexual nudity to protest an anti-nudity law itself is non-violent. This is so, notwithstanding disorderly conduct and indecent conduct laws to the contrary.
The Constitution of the United States, in many ways, is a misunderstood document. It is not necessarily a list of "rights". It is a list of prohibitions that a government is not allowed to do to it's citizens. The various States, which actually wrote and ratified the Constitution, may make laws that apply to the citizens of the individualStates. If the people feel that a certain Statelaw was written contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, the people have a right to go to a Federal Court to challenge the law. Ifa certainissue is deemedto have violated the provisions of the Constitution, then it may finally end up in the US Supreme Court for a final decision. The problem with anti nudity laws is that they are usually a mish-mash of City, County or Township regulations. A person might be cited in one of these local courts and the final decision is made there. The problem here is the concept of "community standards". This means that the leaders of the community cancreate and enforce any laws that they feelare necessaryto enforce the so called"community standards". There's an old saying that applies very well here. That is; You can't fight City Hall.
right the constitution is not neccessarily the people's "rights" the bill of rights is the people's rights. they are amendments to the constitution meaning they were added to the constitution to address issues not addressed in the constitution.
PETA often does legal nude protesting, but they probably also check local laws first to find out how far they can go with that.
True but it's also very bad publicity to go against peta because you may look like you're against animal rights.
(P)eople (E)ating (T)asty (A)nimals ?
Didn't know they did nude protests.
Huh !
right the constitution is not neccessarily the people's "rights" the bill of rights is the people's rights. they are amendments to the constitution meaning they were added to the constitution to address issues not addressed in the constitution.
Actually, they were added to restrict an over-zealous government from usurping God-given rights not explicitly enumerated in the constitution already as clearly as some would like, but already implied.
Recent ( 50 years or so ) government actions would suggest that even the Bill of Rights wasn't strong enough.
what about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Yep. We have the right to life ( to not be murdered without due process ) liberty ( freedom from an oppressive government. Not sure when that one went away. Liberal courts since the 60's I expect ) and the *pursuit* ( but not the achievment ) of happiness, which is really just a simple choice.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!