> -----Original Message-----
> From: Falbert Forester [mailto:albert_at_polaris.umpi.maine.edu]
> Sent: 13 January 2004 4:57 PM
> To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [SkunkworksAMA] Legal publishing in the US (was: Re:
> Uh...just
> wondering...where's Jim?)
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2004 at 11:52, ANTIcarrot wrote:
> >> From: radiocomixcog [mailto:radiocomixcog_at_yahoo.com]
> >
> >Sorry to hear you've had such a bad time of it lately. :(
> I'll buy some more 'comix at the next opportunity. ;)
> >
> >> I think being able to read or look at
> >> whatever we want (as long as it's not illegal and we're adults) is
> >> part of our constitutional rights
> >
> >Um, forgive a non-American for asking for a little
> clarification on this point
> >but...
> >
> >The term legal and illegal means things that the government does and
> >does not want us to do, and in this context it means things the
> >government thinks we should be able to look at and things we
> shouldn't
> >be able to look at. Given that, does it really make sense to
> talk about
> >a 'constitutional right' to look at anything you want, unless the
> >government doesn't want you to? Yes I know the phrasing is something
> >like 'make no law abridging the freedom of the press' but it's
> >basically the same thing isn't it? What's the point of not
> restricting
> >the press if you restrict people's eyes?
> >
> >I know you're a business and therefore have to say certain things to
> >prevent yourselves from being sued, but to anyone else, does
> that seem
> >a little contradictory?
> >
> >ANTIcarrot.
> >PS: With exceptions for copyright, privacy, and misrepresentation.
>
> Dear ANTIcarrot,
>
> Hopefully I can clear this up a little bit. While I am not a
> constitutional law lawyer, I have had to do a fair amount of
> reading on
> this subject, due to my job.
Ah, then that would be a, "Yes it is." ^.^
Hopefully that silly rulling will be over turned soon. Since large portions of the male (and female?) American population has benifited from (or at least is willing to pay for) access to purient material the ruling could even be said to be contradictory. Even if that weren't so it is rather hard to define 'community'. Does that mean the town where RB is based, or where it does it's printing, or a state of national basis, or even the online or online-furry community. ;)
Nothing that dumb should be let near a judge's bench. Oh well...
ANTIcarrot.
Received on Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:01:04 CST