🚀 go-pugleaf

bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov wrote:
: In article <40hp38$g...@clarknet.clark.net>, <luth...@clark.net> writes:

: > He has the right _NOT_ to be exposed to such things.

I've got to take exception to this.  You have no such right.  If I 
publish a magazine, and publish a pornographic ad in it, and you read it, 
I haven't infringed on your rights.  If you keep buying it, and keep 
reading then, I *certainly* am not infringing on your rights.  You've got 
the right not to be *forced* to be exposed to such things, but if you 
walk into the local nudie bar, your rights are not being infringed upon.


: > But I have every right to purchase a 
: > computer game magazine that has _no_ lewd photos in it.

Right.  But you can't extrapolate from this that a publisher of a game 
magazine has no right to include lewd photos in it.  If he does, you have 
the right to not by that magazine.


: You talk about rights.  I believe that (in the US anyway) there are
: only a few "Rights" that the law affords to the citizens.  And, the 

You're wrong right off the bat.  Government does not create rights.  Laws 
do not exist to grant rights; they exist to preserve them.  

: right _NOT_ to not be exposed to pornography is not one of those listed
: out in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, either.  It merely acknowledges 
them.  The ones listed in the BOR are not the only ones extant, as it 
states quite clearly.  Re-read the part which says something to the 
effect of 'the mention in this document of certain rights shall not be 
construed as the denial of others.'  I'm embarassed to quote so poorly, 
but the document mentions specifically that powers not mentioned as 
specifically belonging to the federal gub'mint are reserved to the States 
and to the People.  

: A lot of people support their positions by saying they have the RIGHT
: to not be exposed to smoking, pornography, violence, and so on.  

These people are wrong.  They have the right to not be *forced* to be 
exposed to such things.  But I can't go into the smoking area and demand 
that all the smokers leave.  I can't go striding into Hooters and demand 
that all the waitresses put on some damn clothes.  I can't subscribe to 
Playboy and demand that they remove the naked women from future issues 
because my rights are being infringed.  

: But, it just aint true.  You have the rights to life, liberty, and the 
: of happiness.  That's about it.  

You sound like Attempted Justice Robert Bork, who was denied appointment 
because, among other things, he maintains that since the Constitution and 
BOR don't specifically mention the right to privacy, it doesn't exist.  
You're quoting incompletely.  Try reading the whole things.

"That all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their Creator 
with certain inalienable rights.  That among these are life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness."

See that?  According to the document which you quote so conveniently 
incompletely, we aren't granted rights by the State; we acquire them by 
the mere act of existing.  And the rights specifically mentioned in the 
Declaration are only *some* of them; there are many others which are not 
mentioned.  You're forgetting about those.

: So, please don't support your arguements by saying you have the right to
: this or that unless you have some official document that specifically 
: gives you that right.

Where do you get the strange idea that there are official documents which 
specifically give us rights?  Do you consider the fact that different 
'official' documents give different people different rights?  The 
Declaration of Independence mentions different rights then does _Mein 
Kamf_, the Magna Carta, or _The Communist Manifesto_.  None of these 
documents are the source of rights, and to believe that they are 
demonstrates of profound misunderstanding of the term.

: Note that I am not actually taking a stand on whether or not I THINK
: CGW should or shouldn't carry sex ads.

So noted.