Blog of Reason
New Member
Discussion thread for the blog entry "The Naked Truth" by rabbitpirate.
Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/news/the-naked-truth/
Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/news/the-naked-truth/
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Marcus said:Of course, if Billy Bob has a phone about his person he can photograph his screen as the objects of his prurient interest appear thereon.
Well clearly, to keep us all safe from the terrorists, we should rigidly enforce nudity at airports with strict cavity searches (or possibly xrays as standard). Remember, if you aren't naked, the terrorists win.Josan said:I mostly agree with RabbitPirate. However, I wouldn't really have a problem with it, if it actually served a good purpose, which in my opinion... it does not. Security measures at airports have become, and are becoming more and more ludicrous.
Giliell said:I lose certain rights right in the beginning without having done anything wrong.
I do believe you are simply incorrect about this. Namely, the case in which that was first proposed as an example of acceptable limits on free speech was Schenck v United States, and the debate centered around whether a guy was allowed to print and distribute pamphlets critical of the US draft. The example was given in the unanimous majority opinion stating "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (emphasis mine), and that writing something that opposed the US government (namely its draft) was such a danger that the government could criminally convict you for such criticism. That's right, the original place of that example was about how criticizing the government (in a war) isn't free speech.Nogre said:Just like you waive a certain amount of free speech in a movie theatre (as in not yelling "fire!")
borrofburi said:the example you give is simply utterly false because it has nothing to do with voluntary private restrictions.
I wasn't confused at all, I knew precisely what you were trying to say, but the example you used *was* meant to justify government limits on free speech (even though that's not what you were talking about) and has *nothing* to do with the voluntary waving of rights to private institutions.Nogre said:so I see where you might get confused.
The theater has no rules about yelling fire, none whatsoever. Theaters and yelling fire are in no conceivable way an appropriate example for the voluntary waiving of rights. Try instead a college forum or a terms of service for an internet forum.Nogre said:I was only talking about a theatre having rules about doing dangerous things like that, not the government passing laws to such effect.
At least here it is. Scans and control at the airport are done by the police. We had the discussion about those scanners as well.Nogre said:Giliell said:I lose certain rights right in the beginning without having done anything wrong.
Is it the government running airport security?
If it is the government, I don't see why your private parts are somehow inherently "more private" than your luggage. I mean, could I demand that they don't scan my baggage because I have a sex toy in there, and that's too private to be searched? I don't think so; that'd be absurd. So the real question is just whether the sacrafice of privacy under the veil of anonymity is worth lowering the hassle of airport security and/or raising the safety in airports. If you say yes for luggage, than I don't see how you can say no for your body. It just seems like a double standard to me.
It should definitely be anonymous, though, but I'd say that for luggage just as much for your physical body.