Freedom of Speech - Abortion

[Christopher Shaffer]

My final comments on this as well - first, the bible would be illegal 
because many 'indecent' acts are described in detail.  Second, who defines 
pornography, obscenity, indecency, etc. in a virtual community?  The 
current definition of obscenity in the U.S. is based on local community 
standards.  Who's the local community?  Finally, if you believe that the 
"spirit" of the law really matters, read the following and tell me how 
much "spirit" is worth:

 325. ------- Spirit or Letter -----
 
 As a general rule of statuary construction, the spirit or intention 
of a statute prevails over the letter thereof, and whatever is within 
the spirit of a statute is within the statute although it is not 
within the letter thereof, while that which is in the letter, but not 
within the spirit of the statute, is not within the statute; but, 
where the letter is free and clear from ambiguity, the letter of it 
is not to be disregarded on the pretext of pursuing the sprirt.
 
 82 Corpus Juris Se.  pg 613  p 323
 
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Ronnie Morgan wrote:

> Let me say this one last thing, and then this will be it for me.  I've wasted  
> enough of my work time debating this.  No judge in this world is going to do  
> anything about a rape discussion group that happens to be including minors who  
> have been raped.  That isn't the "spirit" of the bill, and thus would be  
> considered as being "oaky" to do.  (BTW, I'm sure a rape prevention discussion  
> would be appropriate for everyone)  But the discussion would, I would assume,  
> have to keep other minors out.  And, I'm sure that any pornographic provider  
> would be in a lot of trouble if they continued to allow access to minors.  But,  
> everything that you people keep saying would be illegal simply would not be.   
> Things like the bible, discussions on rape, aids, and whatever else all of you  
> have mentioned, would still be legal.  Although I still haven't figured out why  
> the bible would be illegal, unless you mean that religous discussions would be  
> illegal as well.  I don't recall religion being in the bill, but, someone may  
> interpret it as being obscene and indecent.

-----
"One of the essential problems in engineering a religion for any species
is to recognize and refrain from inhibiting those self-regulating systems
in the species upon which the species' survival depends."  --Frank Herbert
Chris Shaffer     shaffer at uic.edu     http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/