From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: 1st amendment exceptions, was: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:19:36 GMT
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Originator: ervan@dawn.cs.rice.edu


jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) wrote:
---------------------------------------
	Really?

		AMENDMENT I:
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

		REALITY I:
	Polygamy in the Mormon faith: Banned.
	Peyote use among the Native Americans: Banned.
	Satanic worship: Subjects the participants to potential sanctions
			 by the child protective services even if no laws
			 are violated.
	Religious influence on political structures: See the Republican
			 			     Platform.
	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.
	Free Speech: Censorship of adult materials.

---------------------------------------

Point 6 is definitely a problem.  It's much worse than that though.
The largest part of the FCC's job is censorship.  It ranges from the
seven dirty words list (now expanded to more nebulous rules) to the
fairness doctrine (which while sounding inocuous puts the 
government in the business of deciding who is legitmate and 
deserving of air time) to the whole concept of licensing based
on 'in the public interest'.    Public financing of campaigns
and restrictions on campaign contributions are also troublesome
for limiting how much 'speech' someone can buy.

Cities, in particular, often have laws that set the amount of the
punishment based on the political content of the crime, e.g.
graffiti is illegal with a $20 fine unless it is anti-semitic
in which case the fine is $200.  Zoning is also often justified
by the need to remove sex shops or topless dancing from the city.
The defense is this is not censorship because these things are
still available.  That's bogus.  Let's outlaw Murphy Brown
broadcasts everywhere but in L.A. and it's not censorship, duh.

Speaking of topless, for a first amendment absolutist such
as myself, all 'public deceny' laws are censorship.

Foreigners are often refused visas based on the content of what
they say and not the threat of the person per se.  Arafat is the
most famous case of this.

Ask any left wing magazine how often they get audited versus
Forbes.  It's another de facto if not de jure form of censorship
by harassing people with the wrong view.  

The list just goes on.  Having said that, I cannot agree with the
other cases though.  As for the Republican platform and the Bush's
babblings, these are opinions of particular individuals.  I don't
agree with the direction in which they want to change the law but
neither do I think there is a First Amendment problem with their wanting
to.

As for the religous freedom cases, I cannot agree that these decisions
violate the First Amendment either.  I do think the laws involved should
be repealed, but that is a different matter.  What then does freedom of
religion mean?  Does it mean that if I call something a religous practice
it should therefore be legal?  Does it mean that people in a particular
church can do something that I cannot?  I think not.  It means that those
things which are religous and not otherwise illegal cannot be targetted
by a law, i.e. capricious laws particularly affecting religion are
unconstitutional.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution