FW: City Tree Rapers

[CeejEngine at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/9/01 11:53:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ravage at einstein.ssz.com writes:


> > In a message dated 6/9/01 11:35:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> > ravage at einstein.ssz.com writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > Bullshit, the 1st makes no such distinction. With respect to libel, or 
> any
> > > other form of speech it only says it isn't a federal issue. Note that no
> > > 
> > 
> > Yeah, but then you've got the 14th, which has been used to apply the Bill 
> of 
> > Rights to the states (due process clause), so that means that no gov. can 
> > restrict free speech. As for libel, its damn hard to make stick- public 
> > figures have a hight standard, which includes proving actual malice. Fun 
> > times.
> 
> But the 14'th only speaks of 'priviliges and immunities' it never(!) uses
> the term 'right' and a right is clearly not a privilige or immunity (read
> the first two para's of the DoI for explanation of 'right').
> 
> If anything the 14'th would prevent states from making any(!) laws
> 

Right, reading it literally. But the supreme court has interpreted the "due 
process" clause to include rights granted under the bill of rights (using the 
incorperation doctrine). I know it isn't in the 14th itself, but the way the 
court has interpreted it has given it this meaning. Look at New York v. 
Griswold (i think) for a good example of this. The court applied unreasonable 
search and siezure to a state using the 14th. The same goes for free speech.

Ender

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 1884 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20010609/511786e0/attachment.txt>