First, when I said the original Daily Cal front-page photo, containing the Berkeley story mentioned by me here, was at an “URL up above”, I meant the link in my OP that reads “front-page article”.
Satan:
The Berkeley police live with the wearing and selling (on Telegraph Ave.) of shirts that say “Fuck the Police”. Anywhere in CA-US, I doubt that there are laws that are specific as to what can be printed or pictured on a garment that is worn on the street, but I’d sure believe that in many places in this state, you would be officially hassled, and maybe charged with some more general local ordinance, or the state offense of disturbing the peace, for wearing such a shirt. Frankly, I don’t like wearing shirts in public (except maybe T shirts in races or while runing or hiking on trails) with any kind of lettering on them, so I’ve never checked into any law on this subject.
DIF:
Well, no one I know of is trying to make overt sexual behavior in public places in Berkeley unchallengeable by the law. The issue here was only as to simple nudity – where and when in public.
DSYE:
Apparently you are assuming the word ‘establishment’ (of religion) in the First Amendment is used there as an abstract noun; I always took it to be a concrete noun, ‘a place of religion’, rather than ‘an instance of establishing of a religion or something related to one’ or ‘a practice of a religion’. It seems to me that, if any such abstract noun had been meant, the amendment would’ve read ‘no law respecting the establishment of a religion (or any practice of one)’. Is there something in the law somewhere that clarifies this?
Well, I think it’s supposed to be more than that – rather, freedom from any state functioning in a manner that is within any existing religion or groups of religion. Of course, “IN GOD WE TRUST” on all coins violates this, because there are non-theistic religions.
That sort of thinking really irks me no end! First of all, the First Amendment does say “speech” and not “expression”, and since expressions can be almost anything, I think the amenders specifically meant any kind of only verbal speech – spoken, written, etc. But more importantly, performing any given act other than a verbal one, in no way, should be taken as a form of expressing some abstraction, unless there is really some undeniable evidence of this. If you say that going nude in public must always be an expression (that the nudist thinks it is OK), there is no reason why you should not also claim that going draped in public must also always be an expression, at least on a hot day, that the sweating clothed person thinks it is not OK to go nude under such circumstances. If I don’t wear a broad-brimmed hat on a bright sunny day in public, am I expressing my belief that I will not get sunburned? Or am I just not wearing a hat because I didn’t think I’d be in the sun long enough to acquire any such problem? I say that, if you don’t have more information, I’m just not wearing a hat, and that the reason I’m not is immaterial to the law. So, how much of your body you cover in public and how much remains exposed is not inherently an “expression”.
If you substitute ‘expression’ for ‘speech’ in the First Amendment, and then admit any act as an act of expression, then the First Amendment must be considered in regard to every act one can perform. Should we consult the First Amendment as to whether I should walk on a crowded public sidewalk while I have a highly contageous disease – because you say that, if I decide I need to get from A to B on foot, and that takes me on such a sidewalk, I must be “expressing” that I have the right to do so? You seem to say yes. I say we consult other law, but that the First Amendment has nothing to do with this state of affairs, because, even if you do the above substitution, simply feeling a need to get from A to B, under any circumstance – as a public health menace, a person with no clothes on, or whatever – is not an expression of any abstract thesis, but merely a choice of behavior seen as practical under the circumstances.
(Well, I thought it was politically correct for fairies to do whatever they want these days.
)
One cause of defective operation of law is that of a lot of legislators, lawyers, judges, etc. being influenced by a lot of fiction; however, I strongly doubt that they have been influenced much by fairy tales. I’m certainly not saying one can’t express a thesis by going naked where it is not usually done; I’m simply saying that the simple act of going naked, or the omission of the act of wearing clothes, depending on how you wish to view it, need not be one of expressing anything, at least beyond feeling like taking your clothes off or not putting them on – which does not constitute political expression per se. If someone smokes in a public building in front of a ‘NO SMOKING’ sign, and a resulting contest of such forbiddance, or of a penalty therefor, is brought to court, can it receive consideration under the First Amendment – because such act of smoking in front of a sign so worded must be considered, not just an act in violation of applicable law, but an “expression” of a claimed right to do the act forbidden by such law? I say the Judge should refuse to listen to such argument, because, if the First Amendment be applicable in this instance, any contested violation of law would have to be argued on such basis on every occasion it should be brought to court. That would be perpetual abuse of the judicial system, the Constitution and the public coffers. (Except that I plead the Shakespearian right to exterminate any lawyer, based on Hamlet.)
Forster:
“The question”? Does this statement mean you think the word ‘speech’ in the First Amendment should be replaced by ‘expression’? My question is about the First Amendment as she reads.
Well, I don’t know where all that about “absolute truth” comes from or what it is supposed to prove. There’s no such thing as absolute truth as to what members of a society should do (despite what the Natural Law people might say). But also, I don’t accept all that about the majority of the world’s people accepting public nudity under most circumstances. As far as complete nudity, I think there’s more tolerance in CA-US than there is in most of the world, including the least civilized parts. As far as public semi-nudity, I still think it has much more to do with urban concentration vs. rural sparseness, or practical working attire, than what nationality or culture is involved, except for a certain range of Muslim countries.
I can’t figure out what this alternative is. I don’t buy all that about how the US was “designed”, in so far as it was. . .and did not simply evolve. But I think your discussion is all distorted. Immigrants to this country and native-born US citizens of less-advantaged ethnicities are not the ones here