The American Civil Liberties Union

"what not to wear (prom edition)"http://news.yahoo.com/..._pr_on_od/oddity_prom_dress_dispute
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/may05/325104.asp he was fined 250 dollars and suspended three days from school for what they called "disorderly conduct" but it's pretty clear it was the dress that did it.personally, i know i did some pretty wacky stuff in high school. i would occasionally paint my nails (for spirit week, i did them in the school colors), and i even appear in my senior yearbook dressed as alex from "a clockwork work orange." high school is full of weird-dressing events. we had class colors day, weird hat day, weird hair day, 80's day, pajama day, and the not-so-successful toga day. (a little more nudity than intended...)and i've been to a number of school dance events. the bit the popped him on, the disorderly conduct and lewd dancing -- well. high school dances are full of so-called lewd dancing.basically, they're infringing on his freedom of symbolic speech. he was not disrupting a school day, was not on school grounds, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary other than dressing differently. cohen and tinker apply immediately, and show that he's well with the acceptable standards.

---

אָרַח

well, since i'm full of quotes in this thread, to quote the great poet jay-z:

quote:

---

i haven't passed the bar but i know a little bit
enough that you won't illegally search my shit.

---

well, the standards that posted previously say that such a charge would be prior restraint. in this country, you cannot punish people for acts they have not YET committed. the only reason, in this case, to break the prior restraint standard is if a clear and present danger can be shown: if advocating the illegal activity immediately puts people in serious and specific danger.

---

אָרַח

yes, well, it's apparently against the law to do so.one source said the year before, he wore a duct-tape tux to the prom. which was not illegal.

---

אָרַח

i love that song.

from their page:

quote:

---

Through our work in the courts and the legislative arena, the ACLJ is dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

---

as opposed the ACLU?(who are dedicated to protecting EVERYONE'S religious and constitutional freedoms)it looks a platform for one man's crusade to fight for pro-lifers and christian conservative right and drop his own name into politics. but that's just from a cursory glance.

---

אָרַח

i'm pretty positive that restricting support for ongoing activities is still considered prior restraint.either the actions influence the support, or the support influences the actions. if it's the first, it's a matter of taste. if it's the second, it's prior restraint. in the first case, the matter can sometimes legislated on the grounds of obsecenity, or some of the other standards i talked about.but it depends on the case -- talking about in abstract terms doesn't really work, because there are specific and different legal standards for each area.

---

אָרַח

oh dear god the sheer idiocy.Error: 404

quote:

---

Leslie from Utah asks: With the Ninth Circuit ruling unconstitutional the cross in the Mojave Desert that was placed there by WWI veterans, could that precedent be applied to all of the white crosses at Arlington National Cemetery?

​

Jay answers: Leslie, I'm concerned about that, and I think that court decision is a very, very serious violation of the Constitution in and of itself. I think the idea that you would now take a symbol and say because it has a religious association it has to be removed is wrong. In my view, why wouldn't it affect Arlington Cemetery?

---

here's a reason, jay. i'm sure he's so worried about protecting the honor of our fallen patriots at arlington, considering he's never been there. for an organization based in washington dc, that's a bit of a surprise.the sight of the those rounded tombstones in rows, covering everything you can see is not one easily forgotten. it's probably one the single most powerful things an american can ever see.and there are no crosses.

---

אָרַח

so am i.i posted a case on the h-bomb. the only reason the gag order was allowed was that national security was a more important interest than avoiding any form of prior restraint.

---

אָרַח

well, i discovered a bug in the site. the logout function doesn't work correctly. yes, but stones may also be engraved with a star of david.he (like dick cheney) was clearly under the impression that the headstones are crosses. notice he says "white crosses." the whole marble slab is white american marble. there is nothing to set the cross out but shape.the cemetary maintains a rather strict standard of uniformity. every headstone has to be basically the same in size, shape, and layout. that's the military way. the shape is one that is agreed upon to be unbiased to any religion or lack thereof. but the religion of the deceased may be indicated in an unobtrusive way.there is nothing here to rule unconstitutional. they are in no way establishing a sanctioned religion, or allowing religions to be inflicted on others.

---

אָרַח

i'm pretty sure he's thinking of flanders field, "crosses row on row."

---

אָרַח

ok. yes, but, as i explained, this case is different because it is agreed upon by a vast majority of society to be disgusting and offensive to the point being detrimental to society, as well as violating the age of consent bits of the law. this part of the law was found to be overbroad and not allowing for artistic, journalistic, other legitimate uses. what if you're running a news story on child pornography? what if you're making an educational tape on child abuse? what if you're robert mapplethorp or jock sturges? it also does not allow for the context. is it one scene in a legitimate artistic movie? or is all pre-pudescent genitalia all the time? and computer-generated images? you can't even draw a picture? this part is even MORE overbroad. appears to be? so it could really be a young-looking adult? tell me, have you ever watched american beauty? seen franco zeffereli's production of romeo and juliet? both depict minors in engaged in sexual explicit conduct. is the important word here. just one of these standard need apply. and, at least one of them was overturned by the cases i posted, such as:

quote:

---

Aschcroft v Free Speech Coalition(2002)

​

As we have noted, the CPPA is much more than a supplement to the existing federal prohibition on obscenity. The CPPA, however, extends to images that appear to depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit activity without regard to the Miller requirements. The materials need not appeal to the prurient interest. Any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented, is proscribed. The CPPA applies to a picture in a psychology manual, as well as a movie depicting the horrors of sexual abuse. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards.

​

The CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an idea that of teenagers engaging in sexual activitythat is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages. Under the CPPA, images are prohibited so long as the persons appear to be under 18 years of age. This is higher than the legal age for marriage in many States, as well as the age at which persons may consent to sexual relations.

---

quote:

---

Aschcroft v Free Speech Coalition(2002)

​

The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. Under Miller, the First Amendment requires that redeeming value be judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive.

---

quote:

---

Aschcroft v Free Speech Coalition(2002)

​

The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. [T]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted . The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process....

​

In sum, 2256(8)(B) covers materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment. The provision abridges the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of law-ful speech. For this reason, it is overbroad and unconstitutional.....

---

so basically, that's nice and all, but the supreme doesn't agree with you. why the title still reads the same way, i don't know. let me get back to you on this one. i'm relatively positive that the server containing the images has to be in this country. for instance, in england the age of consent is 16. so in england, you can find pictures of what we consider minors, naked and engaged in sexual activities. -- on the internet. viewing them is downloading, technically, so stumbling across a few constitutes ownership of sexually explicit material of minors. which, although legal there, is not legal here. but the us can't sue and isp in britain over it. we do not own, nor have jurisdiction over the entire internet.i'm also pretty positive that the fcc and other governmental organizations have had their rights to restrict anything on the internet severly question, if not overturned, in one of those reno v. aclu cases.so, basically, i posted those cases for a reason. nobody agrees with or likes child porno. but, and i'll quote it again:

quote:

---

The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse. [T]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted . The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process

---

---

אָרַח

monk, i've been very careful to post only opinions consistent with the ruled opinion of the court. all of the text i have posted from sup.ct. cases have been of the majority opinion, and delivered by the justice speaking for the court.you are quoting breifs, lawsuits, and allegations. not the rulings. there is a difference here. basically, although we're both arguing only one side of the battle, you're citing the arguments made by one side, and i'm citing the decisions by the highest court in the country.the only bit i've really overlooked is whether cases have been overturned. but because it only happens occasionally, i've been a bit lazy with it. and a good section of the cases i've cited overturned previous standards from previous cases.so uhh. how'd the nambla case turn out? how high did it get? cause i can't find a damned thing on it dated after 2000. no case, no decision, nothing.

---

אָרַח

just for shits and giggles, and because i'm in the mood to whore my own art, i would like to post a picture. the final title i decided on was "eleven"the name is supposed to, with the image, connotate an age. in reality, it was shot 11 on the roll. the model, a close personal friend (and ex-g/f) was at the time of this shot twice that age, well within the age of consent.still, she gets carded rather regularly. on good days, she looks twelve. in the image, she appears very young, possibly under the age of consent. no nudity is shown, only implied. the stuff she's wearing connotates bondage and domination. it sort of implies sexual victimization, of someone who appears to be under the age of 18. a person i know who was molested as a child told me that this image gave them the creeps.

quote:

---

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

---

she appears to be a minor. and she appears to be engaged in sexual conduct. under usc title 18/110 2256(8)(b), this image it child pornography.note that while no nudity is contained in the image, the statute does not specify nudity, just sexual context or actions. child porn can be dry-humping, fully clothed. not also that i did photograph someone without legal consent. in fact, i could procure a model release and id if a court so demanded proving that she is not a child.it might be stretching it with my case, but it's an example of what the COULD apply to when it's not specific enough. but still, the code makes the SUBJECT of molestation a taboo. the statute is overbroad, and could easily to applied to legitimate works of art or documentary, and things that have nothing to do with children.so what do you think? should this image be considered child pornography, or not? am i breaking the law posting this or owning this?

---

אָרַח

i asked that question earlier. nobody said anything. statutory rape (violating age of consent) and violent rape are different matters.also, they neglected to mention that the perps in the case also raped and murdered a 24-year-old. well out of the namble range, i believe.

---

אָרַח

no. please read more carefully. we're in argument as to WHY it is illegal. when the argument first came up, i explicitly stated why it was illegal, and the reason that did NOT apply. you are arguing one that does not apply.child pornography is illegal because of obscenity laws, and age of consent laws. yes, but you call also do all of those things WHILE depicting children in sexually explicit scenes, and still be within the realm of your constitutionally protected rights.tell you. this will settle this debate. go down to blockbuster, and rent a movie called "kids." i'm not gonna debate any further until you've seen this movie. not this law it's not. that's part of the problem, and WHY ashcroft overturned it. i'm advocating that the law was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court of the united states of america. do you debate that fact? shall i quote it again? yes, and i just told you what could be done, and why. yes, you will notice that bit in my description. possession of obscenity is different from distribution. prior restraint need not apply to possession.

---

אָרַח