If you aren't doing anything illegal...

Great Debates
41

This is only the case if selling Playboy in the first place is illegal. Part C of that law says “promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device”. Therefore, if possessing 6 copies of Playboy is a crime, then the newsstand carrying them is committing a crime as well. This all hinges on what is and is not “obscene”. Obscene does not mean “with boobies”.

Not to mention the guy from USA today is doing crap that anyone with a working braincell should know is inappropriate. Fixing an old freon air conditioner? If you have the know-how to fix and recharge an air conditioner, one would think that you would be up on the fact that refrigerants have been outlawed due to ozone depletion issues. It’s not exactly a secret. I also doubt that one will go to jail for it, even if caught.

I think Bricker is right in that the vast majority of crimes, things punishable by jail time instead of a fine, are well known to be criminal acts, or require one to be aware they are committing a criminal act.

Infractions, OTOH, one can violate them every day without being aware of it. I’ve been living in Montclair for just over 4 months, and I’ve probably violated a dozen ordinances regarding home ownership without even knowing they existed.

42

Thanks. I think (I hope?) it’s no more true for me than anyone else, but I sometimes feel as if my posts were invisible. And certainly athelas in his summing up, didn’t seem to have seen this one at all.

athelas, considering that all the administration has to do is to withhold information about what it’s doing (c.v. the whole domestic spying business), how could you *possibly * have guaranteed safeguards? Maybe you don’t think *this * administration would abuse that information, but can you say that about *every * administration that you can envision?

I’d very much like to see what you would consider adequate safeguards against abuse, and how you would go about enforcing them such that you could pretty much guarantee that no one was cheating. Because I’m a reasonably smart person, or so I like to think, and I sure can’t think of any way.

43

Obscene means whatever people want it to mean, and for many people “boobies” are quite enough.

44

This is well put. it really shouldn’t take more than a second of thought to realize that acting in a way that harms other individuals will be criminal. However, considering that one of the bases on which our society is supposedly founded is personal liberty, then it’s often difficult to distinguish which subgroups are going to outlaw what in the names of “protecting people from themselves” or protecting the abtraction we call “society” or “the state.”

45

The question is, should it really be the government’s job to define what is or is not “obscene?”

As much as people would like to believe it, “obscenity” doesn’t fall within the realm of ethics. It’s somewhere between aesthetics and personal taste. Should the government really be the arbiter of what is or isn’t obscene? How about if the government decides what is or isn’t beautiful? Or what is or isn’t good music?

And honestly, even if we go beyond the subjective world of “obscene” maybe into something like Mississippi’s Dildo Laws, I wonder what the purpose is of protecting society from the Great Dildo Scourge? If states like Texas or Mississippi want to create laws that enforce “values” on people and intrude unfairly into the lives of individuals, why don’t they start with mandatory reading lessons?

To relate this to the topic at hand: This is the kind of nonsense that governments do already when given the power to do so. Ridiculous laws and restrictions based on personal sentiments and tastes. Can they really be trusted to gather information on every aspect of everyone’s life?

46

Been a long time since I studied political theory and such, but I always thought the presumption of the social contract was that people agree to give up some aspects of their freedoms, to obtain the benefits of community.
If one accepts such a view, then doesn’t it follow that those rights/freedoms that are not expressly subordinated to social benefit are retained? Prime among those IMO would be personal privacy.

47

Nope, the government should stay out of it, unless coercion/fraud/etc are involved. And yes, child porn comes under that, as there is an actual victim ( the child, duh ) who is too young to consent.

OTOH, I don’t want someone looking at everything on my computer or photo album ( and everyone’s computer or photos ) and deciding whether or not something is child porn. Is a photo of a man giving his infant a bath child porn ? Someone who wanted to screw up my life or who was crazy-fervent on the subject could say so ( and some have ).

If you want a reason to oppose the idea, just imagine the most disgusting/fanatic/criminal/tyrannical person you can think of having access, and remember that at some point - they will.

48

For me the big one is the authorities planting evidence.

I’m not paranoid and I don’t expect the Government is interested in little me.
But the principle holds.

Here in the UK, we’ve had a black man stopped by the police for driving an expensive car. (He happened to be a senior member of local government.)
That was prejudice.

In the US, you have Guantanmo Bay.
Can you trust these people?

49

I’d say the foundation of dignity is being confident enough in yourself not to care about other people “violating your privacy”.
Of course we all do things that’s legal, but that we’d still like to keep to ourselves, but we usually don’t do these things in public spaces, and luckily, that’s still where most surveilance cameras are.
-But if we allow surveilance cameras now, who knows what we’ll allow next?
Probably cameras in your bedroom, with some governmental stalker maniac watching your every move. Be afraid!
I’ve no clue of the exact ratio, but I still think it’s safe to guess that for each big brother, there’s an awfull lot of ants to keep an eye on. Of all the digital traces you leave during the day, I don’t really think anyone cares about a single one. Alright, there’s potential for abuse, but most of these digital traces do far more good: helping money transactions go smooth, protecting civilians, busting criminals, letting the good folks at 911 know where your cell phone is, and whatnot. It’s so simple, so efficient, it’s tomorrow!

Oh well. Really, all I’m saying is don’t worry so much, it might kill you.

50

How young are you? Do you have any knowledge of what Nixon did? What J. E. Hoover did? Spying on political enemies is a time-hallowed pastime among the less scrupulous of high officials. However, today the ability to do so effectively far surpasses anything it’s ever been before. And you think this isn’t grounds for concern?

I’m not particularly worried about being spied on myself, FOR myself. I’m worried about tyranny, which can be achieved by two routes - convincing the people to legally give up their rights in exchange for safety, and to illegally get enough information to sink your political enemies before they can become a threat to you. Now, let’s see. Who do we know who has used ‘safety’ to restrict civil liberties and has ignored protections guaranteed under law to collect information about U.S. citizens recently? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover.

Maybe some of you approve of the actions of the current government. But I find it very odd that the people who are most likely to scream “Government is too big!!!” seem to be the same people who appear to be perfectly willing to give away the very freedoms they claim to value, whether of privacy, religion, sex life. Doesn’t there seem to be any tie between knowledge and power in your mind? Or is it OK as long as the big government only imposes restrictions that you feel comfortable within anyway and as long as government isn’t doing anything despicable, like trying to help someone somewhere?

51

If the discretion to decide what is private is taken away from me, what kind of dignity do I have? That version of dignity sounds a lot like apathy.

Fabulous way to address an argument.

Seeing the way technology improves, I would expect that the systems that keep an eye on us are becoming more centralized and efficient every day. So I’m not really buying a safety in numbers argument in this case.

52

When I was on the road I used to listen to talk shows for hours every day. I often heard people advocating the suspension of civil rights to solve some problem. One example was from those living in an area where they perceived a drug problem existed, many would say that police should be allowed to search private property, at
will, in order to deter drug trafficking. They always cited the same old saw, that they had nothing to hide, so why not let the police search.
I often wonder how many of these people have really considered what they might have in their homes that could be considered illegal. Ever “borrowed” any pain meds. when you threw your back out, or had a toothache? Any of those pills still sitting in a drawer, or the back of you medicine cabinet? Got any souvenirs of your youth, like a bong or a roach clip, maybe even a bit of weed tucked away that you totally forgot about? Ever looked up anything strange on the internet, just out of curiosity, like maybe “The Anarchist’s Cookbook”, or how to create a new identity? Maybe you accidently, or on purpose, visited a porn site, could it be that some of those “models”
were underage? I’m sure there must be many more examples. How are they going to explain these things when the police find them?
These basic rights are at the very foundation of our democracy and if we are too cavalier about waiving them, we are in danger of losing them

53

Agreed on all points.

54

Marley23 beat me to it, but yeah, this doesn’t sound very much like dignity. More like apathy, complacency, lack of self-esteem, etc.

How would you feel about your confidence/dignity being put to the test by someone installing a webcam in your toilet without your knowledge? Or your bedroom, where you are, presumably, intimate with your spouse?

55

All the bolded part does is establish a presumption. If you have more than six identical obscene articles, we can presume you intend to distribute them. That’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. Six identical – unlikely that they’re for your personal use. If they are, you can make that case.

How many identical items do YOU think is necessary before we can assume that the intent is to distrbute them?

56

The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways - John Roberts

There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. – Antonin Scalia

It is a measure of the framers’ fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself. – Sandra Day O’Connor

Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment. – Sandra Day O’Connor

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(simpler version… just because a right isn’t listed, doesn’t mean we don’t have it.)

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public’s attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th’s search and seizure limits, and the 5th’s self-incrimination limit.

57

Read that again:

They don’t have to be identical; just similar. You might have different sized butt plugs for how long you plan to wear it or different colors for your mood. (Smaller ones are easier for all-day, for the record.) Maybe I want the vibrating one today and the anal beads tomorrow. I might even want a pocket pussy or fleshlight for variety. If I have more than one type of butt plug plus a vibrator or two, I can easily get into six more “obscene devices*”. Why should that be a presumption of anything illegal? Just because your tastes are bland and vanilla doesn’t mean others don’t like a bit more spice.

*“Obscene device” means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.

You should never assume anything about my intent. The presumption should be that I’m innocent of any crime.

58

Was Imelda Marcos the ringleader of a shoe smuggling operation, or did she just like shoes ?

59

Any time a person - any person - invokes the “if you aren’t doing anything” argument, that tells me they have nothing worth listening to.It implies an assumption of guilt. That very idea flies in the face of law, which (supposedly) carries a presumption of innocense. It also runs counter to the constitution and several Supreme Court rulings. It’s the mindset of the police state mentality.

60

I think we can call the fact that a lawyer bobbled this point to be game-set-and-match on the original question of whether anybody could reasonably be expected to be sure of following the law well enough to be safe in the face of constant monitoring…