Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Antoninus
When Podunk, Kansas decides that they don't want nude dancing in their town, what right does the federal judiciary have to impose it upon them?

If nobody in Podunk wanted nude dancing, there would be no issue. Rather it's that some people don't like it and want to forcibly impose their preferences on those who do. Maybe that's constitutional, but let's be clear on who's doing the "imposing".

314 posted on 01/19/2006 2:37:19 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (Chloe rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies ]


To: ThinkDifferent
If nobody in Podunk wanted nude dancing, there would be no issue.

You mean businesses don't open up in places where absolutely nobody wants to patronize them? Surely not ;)

Reminds me of the obscenity prosecution out of Utah a few years ago:

Provo, Utah — The video-store chain that Larry W. Peterman owned in this valley of wide streets and ubiquitous churches carried the kind of rentals found anywhere in the country — from Disney classics to films about the sexual adventures of nurses. Mr. Peterman built a thriving business until he was charged last year with selling obscene material and faced the prospect of bankruptcy and jail.

Just before the trial, Mr. Peterman's lawyer, Randy Spencer, came up with an idea while looking out the window of the courtroom at the Provo Marriott. He sent an investigator to the hotel to record all the sex films that a guest could obtain through the hotel's pay-per-view channels. He then obtained records on how much erotic fare people here were buying from their cable and satellite television providers.

As it turned out, people in Utah County, a place that often boasts of being the most conservative area in the nation, were disproportionately large consumers of the very videos that prosecutors had labeled obscene and illegal. And far more Utah County residents were getting their adult movies from the sky or cable than they were from the stores owned by Larry Peterman.

"Wall Street Meets Pornography"


321 posted on 01/19/2006 2:52:36 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies ]

To: ThinkDifferent
let's be clear on who's doing the "imposing"
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
--L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)

322 posted on 01/19/2006 2:56:04 PM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson