Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: The Grounds for Appeal

["D. C. Sessions" <dvd(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Sunday 02 December 2001 19:55, you wrote:
> You may be close to the mark. I haven't finished the opinion either 
> but one thing I noted was that they start off by discussing the fact 
> that the governemnt must have a compelling interest yet don't state 
> what that was. Maybe it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be but 
> maybe they should tell us what that is for those of us intellectually 
> challanged <sarcasm>. In the sort of formal argumentation these 
> people perform, it should be stated for completeness least the 
> reader substitute their own but it also invalidates all the subsequent 
> argument - what's the point of continuing if the fundamental 
> requriments aren't met. 

Alternately, one could take the decision on face value and conclude
that protecting the revenue stream of entertainment companies *is*
a compelling State interest, and apply that same reasoning in other
contexts where such an interest trumps lesser concerns.

A good starting point would be contract law, since (IIRC) compelling
State interests are in and of themselves heavy-duty public policy,
and public policy trumps private contractual arrangements.

-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+