[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- From: mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:51:34 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529
The ruling in this tatoo case sounds something like what we discussed
here some time ago. That you have a right to something is viewed
separately from the priveledge to exercise that right:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58433,00.html
"State attorneys argued the law, which prohibits tattooing by anyone
other than a doctor, is a public health issue. The justices upheld
White's conviction, saying the First Amendment right to have a tattoo is
a separate issue from the process of tattooing."
How does one argue against that?
mickeym