Public sex

[Malla Pollack]

I'm not bitting.  You could just as well say that no one should give a penny
to a starving man because how would you ever get him to go to work.  

To use both classic responses to a parade of horribles (i) I don't think
this is a likely outcome,(for one thing, we could develop rules like the
"captive audience" doctrine in fress speech) and (ii) I don't think it would
be so horrible (assuming of course that no one can show any actual harm to
anyone from seeing public sex). 

Malla Pollack
Professor, American Justice School of Law
mpollack at ajsl.us
270-744-3300 x 28
articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:55 PM
To: Con Law Prof list
Subject: RE: Public sex

	I myself disapprove of most laws that are based chiefly on
people's general sense of offense.  I don't think we should ban the
eating of horses, for instance.

	But the question is whether such laws ought to be seen as
unconstitutional (and, if so, how "offense" can be defined).  And it's
not enough, I think, to say that the law isn't close to legalizing
public sex.  If the proposal on the table is that offense to others
should never be an adequate justification for a restriction, then a ban
on public sex would indeed be unconstitutional.  Is that a result that
our legal system ought to reach?

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Malla Pollack [mailto:mpollack at ajsl.us] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:51 PM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; 'Con Law Prof list'
> Subject: RE: Public sex
> 
> The problem is that the law is much closer to banning men 
> from holding hands in public to make sure that "we" never get 
> to the spot where we might want to consider banning sex in public. 
> 
> Malla Pollack
> Professor, American Justice School of Law mpollack at ajsl.us 
> 270-744-3300 x 28 articles http://works.bepress.com/malla_pollack/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:44 PM
> To: Con Law Prof list
> Subject: Public sex
> 
> 	Speaking of offense to others, should it be 
> unconstitutional to ban people from having sex in public?  
> (Should it only be unconstitutional if the law's proponents 
> are religious people who rest the law on their religious 
> sensibilities, but just fine if they are secular people who 
> rest the law on their secular sensibilities?)
> 
> 	Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To 
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release 
> Date: 4/19/2007
> 5:32 AM
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.




-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
5:32 AM