Slashdot Mirror

anyone who believes that americans don't have more freedom than people living in saudi arabia need to educate themselves.

Not Really.

However, I'm sure we have other stupid laws that you could find.

Adultery is also against the law in Maryland, where the penalty is a fine of $10, about the cost of a pecan bar and two large caramel macchiatos at Starbucks.

Ok, I can accept that definition of "liberal", (though I'd really call it more libertarian). So how about a Texas law banning gay sex, that was only struck down by the US Supreme Court 4 years ago? Is that liberal by your definition?

In the context of the United States, Texas was only one of four states that sodomy laws against gays hadn't been struck down by state courts, or repealed by the legislature. There's plenty of states ready to legalize marijuana. Nevada almost passed a referendum to allow its sale in the open. I don't believe Texas is among those states. Massachusets has legalized gay marriage, New Jersey is likely to do so quite soon. How's Texas doing on that front?

Those are the things I'd look at to define liberties, and sorry, but I just can't see calling Texas liberal, at least within the context of the United States. Sure, Texas isn't as crazy reactionary as Bavaria.. but then Bavaria is probbably the craziest part of Germany.

I like the premise, but I think the metaphor is wrong: there is no actual debt, and in now way does being in prison function as repayment. Aside from other philosophical issues around the meaning of justice, individuals that demonstrate that they are a danger to society must be segregated from society at least until (arguably, only until) they are no longer a danger to society. The idea that someone presents such a danger that they need to be tracked suggests they are too dangerous to be "out." The theoretical streaker is unlikely to present any danger to society, whereas an unrepentant serial rapist with multiple prior convictions probably shouldn't be let out again, or at least until there's some plausible developments in psychiatry. But the same holds true for violent criminals, so clearly sex crimes are singled out solely for their prurient interest, by providing an opportunity to gratuitously describe sex in an offensive way that winds up voters but is without any political or legislative merit, which sounds a lot like a sex crime itself to me...

On balance though, we should be grateful for Lawrence & garner v. State of Texas. It would be a great help to pass a constitutional amendment barring laws that dictate the private behavior of consenting adults. Ask your legislators.

As the "Won't somebody please think of the children" subject alludes, the Simpsons have effectively commented on bogeyman politics, in particular with the bear patrol episode. It's just transparent pandering, creating a false fear and exploiting it; and all the better that the subject be indefensible, though simply defenseless will also work when all the good ones are taken. Sex criminals will always be an easy target, but once that bandwagon has left the station (again), it's time to attack immigrants (poor Groundskeeper Willie), or Albania, or homosexuals, or whatever.

The best thing about this sort of moralist pandering and posturing is that politicians are just as morally complex as everyone else and their utter humiliation is a nice reward for the harm they do, so we should all thank Limbaugh, Haggard, Barnes, Bakker, etc for the joy they've given us.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

Check out VA...

"'it is not state repression but the views of the society in general."

Not quit true: Is both, democracy at it's best, mob-mentality voters upholding laws for the legal lynching of repressed minorities.

"Homosexuality is not a punishable crime in the sense that no one has been convicted of it in recent years."

Unfortunately that's not true either, they are still putting people in jail, http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/india/india.htm.

Gays are also harassed on many other ways, police eats, rob and sometimes rape then on cruising areas, and all form of active discrimination is of course legal. AIDS counselling is unavailable, what usually translates on a death sentence.

> What happens if the government decided to ban oral sex?

Funny you should mention it because until recently your government was doing just that.

> What happens if the government decided to ban oral sex?

Funny you should mention it because until recently your government was doing just that.

America has good freedom of the press unless you are taking about "Adult" subjects. Then it is problly illegal in South Carolina.

And it doesn't have good company in the world, either...

When I first read the book back in high school I was shocked to discover that it presented a world that most of my peers considered to be desireable. Lots of sex and drugs. Sure, not too much freedom, but lots of sex and drugs. Everything is planned out for you...but lots of sex and drugs. It has its appeal to the modern mentality. Has society changed so much since Huxley's time?

Everything changed after we won the war on drugs. Now, when there are no drugs any more, there's only sex left, but don't worry, we're working on it.

My government officials are hell bent on making me a criminal then so be it.

Heh heh. I renounced living within the bounds of the law YEARS ago. How can a rational mind do otherwise? Consider:

In Oklahoma, it is illegal for a woman to style her own hair without being licensed by the state.

In Massachusetts it is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.

I was going to mention the sodomy laws (some of which I have broken), only to discover (just now) that they have (finally) been declared unconstitutional. Well, maybe common sense hasn't been completely abandoned after all. Nevertheless, for many a year, those worthless laws were undoubtedly broken by millions.

The point of my post is this: Ridiculous laws like these only serve to erode respect for the law in general. Once you break an unfair law and justify the act because of its unfairness, it is a little easier to break another, and another, and another.

"But the camera is not on your property citizen. It is mounted on a pole located on city property, in such a location as to be able to observe your activities, which are, in violation of state law, citizen".

"But the camera is not on your property citizen. It is mounted on a pole located on city property, in such a location as to be able to observe your activities, which are , citizen". (Yes, I know that one was repealed).

Did you know that "loving spaghetti" is legal in the State of Texas? ("Loving meatballs", however, is still a Class C misdemeanor, punishable with a fine of up to $500.)

The FBI is on occasion not above a little blackmail (especially the 3rd paragraph) They also like to keep tabs on the political opposition.

Seriously. You're paranoid...

No, just cynical. You're naive.

Because eventually they'd get to someone like me, who has nothing to hide.

But do you have nothing to lose?

It applies to the government, too. Everyone will be able to see exactly what the FBI and the CIA and the NSA are up to

How does this follow? Will the NSA publish their intercepts? No, open government is a great idea, but I doubt the U.S. government would open up voluntarily. If anything it has recently clamped down on information "because it might help terrorists".

I think our constitution needs another ammendment that says something along the lines of "No law shall be passed which denies an adult individual the right to perform an act which causes no harm to any individual other than the actor."

Good luck getting that through. After all there are states that still have sodomy laws on the books. And you want a constitutional amendment no less.

Fortunately, though, our first ammendment already covers the most important rights of all. As long as it stays intact and as well-defended as it is

The point is that you can, in practice, damage the first amendment without breaking it. All you need to do is make it clear to people that they may be free to speak up, but there will be consequences. This is the famous "chilling effect". The problem is that the consequences can be serious, but subtle enough that most people not affected will simply not care. A perfect example is the new airline watch list: e.g. if you are caught protesting missile defense, or the "School of the Americas", you can look forward to a strip search every time you want to fly in the U.S. Sure, it may not deter the hardcore activists, but it will help keep such opinions marginalized (there was an article in Salon.com recently but I can't find the link anymore).

I think a 100% open information society could have a lot of advantages.

This new government database is a long way from an open society. Your use of phrases like "information wants to be free" makes me think you understand that "knowledge is power". Now we have a case of the government collecting information; I don't think they should have the associated power, at least not without a helluva lot more oversight.

Companies who fire people for being gay are limiting their own selection of employees and making an unprofitable decision. Besides that, such actions tend to generate lots of negative publicity.

And has that kept the U.S. military from firing people for being gay?