From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today 
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:18:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.234625.10454@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.225040.27403@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu
(Roger Dubbs) wrote:
>>Arguably, taking nude pictures of children could be a crime.
>
>Wiking your eye could be a crime, also.  I don't see any valid reason
>to make either a crime, though, and doing that would be a violation of
>people's rights.

Perhaps you can press charges on "conspiracy to commit child abuse"?
The idea is to protect children.  I think this is a good idea, and is a
legitimate function of government.  (I doubt it is in the powers of the
Federal government though...any comments on that?)

>>Perhaps the government could prosecute the publisher for taking the
>>pictures.

>Sure, as it can prosecute people for saying "fuck".  The question is
>why should it be allowed to break the Constitution?

Obviously in your example, freedom of speech (Amendment I) is violated.
I'm not so certain it is in my case.  The government can certainly prove
that the publisher possesses the pictures.  Is he not then the most
logical photographer?  The government wouldn't necessarily win, but IMO
they usually would unless the publisher produced the actual photographer.

>>If the publisher can
>>prove that no conspiracy existed, only then would they be able to
>>publish the pictures.  
>
>So, you are saying that the published is guilty until she proves
>herself innocent.  I don't see how this would make things any better.

Ah, quite right.  I did describe prior restraint didn't I?  Well, reverse
it.  The publisher could continue to publish whatever he wished until
the trial is over.  If the government wins, obviously the publisher is
out of business, since he is in jail.

>>Sorry to ramble, but I didn't want anyone to think I condone child
>>pornography. 8)
>
>It seems to me that's what this is all about.  People don't want
>anyone to think they condone drug use, so they keep silent even though
>the War on Constitution is harming them.  People don't want anyone to
>think they condone child pornography so they are willing to accept
>censorship and other violations of their rights.  People don't want
>anyone to think they condone crime, so they let Big Brother listen to
>their phones.  And so on.

I am not keeping quiet.  I am not accepting censorship.  I am attempting
to come up with a Constitutional proposal to replace existing
non-constitutional law.  If my proposals fail, I am sorry.  Please post
a counter-proposal to deal with the same problem.  If you feel there is
no problem, please tell why you believe that. (Though possibly the
discussion should be moved to another group or e-mail.)

>>My basic point is that justice can be done without
>>violating the Constitution.
>
>Why do you then propose several alternatives which violate the
>Constitution?

Because I didn't think my proposals all the way through. 8)  Would you
like to help improve them?

/Roger
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.religion.misc,uiuc.civil-liberty