|
Re: Banish the Burqa
From: Mr.clydeslick@yahoo.com (Clyde Slick)
On Sep 9, 10:20 pm, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
In article
<414450c1-6962-46c8-b793-7a1291da7...@c16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now, tell me this folks, in the legal sense, why isn't
public nudity a protected free speech?
This may not answer the question, but a tax on nude dancing paid by the
patrons in places that serve alcohol is now before the Texas Supreme
Court.
Here's the US Supreme Court:
....
_dancing
Scalia said the law did not implicate the First Amendment but punished
unlawful conduct; i.e., public nudity. He determined that the general
law targeting public nudity was a generally applicable law that ³is not
subject to First Amendment scrutiny at all.²
the other 8 talked about the First amendment issue, with some degree
of applicability
but, it was about dancing in a private business, not walking down the
public street
and there was a reference to the supposed
"evil of public nudity", in some cases it might
be ugly, but i can't see how it can be considered evil.
One would not be doing anything more evil than if one had clothes on.
| Subject |
 | |
|
