Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Defense of Lapdancing: It's a Privacy Issue More

In Defense of Lapdancing: It's a Privacy Issue

Comments Filter:

  • I guess I have some libertarian streak in that I think the lawbooks should be trimmed down substantially. The government or society has no business meddling in a lot of things. If a law is not enforced (Such as the sodomy laws etc), then why is it still around? Many laws that govern the behavior and actions of consenting adults should be removed in my opinion, and I'm not just talking about the ones regarding sexual conduct. Freedom comes when you have laws to protect you from the actions of others giving y

    • Yea, I can substantially agree with you on the last paragraph, but I think restrictions on non-commercial transportation are way beyond what should be allowed.

      BTW, a Maine cop on usenet (consider the source) said that Maine requires an operator's license at all times, even on private property! You can even get a DUI there, on your own property, miles from the nearest public road.

      Here is something interesting. Was going to post it on jaycaruso.com but it is more appropriate here:

      As for prostitution, it
      • BTW, a Maine cop on usenet (consider the source) said that Maine requires an operator's license at all times, even on private property! You can even get a DUI there, on your own property, miles from the nearest public road.

        This does seem really stupid on the surface, but there is a simple way to complexify ("complexify" is copyright 2003 by dagg) the situation. What if the private individual invites the public to drive into her property so she can sell them fresh milk and eggs? Is it still acceptable fo

        • What if her son crashes into your car and directly causes fatalities?

          I think that action breaks plenty of other REASONABLE laws that apply, like homocide, without the need of charging driving offenses. He did not need to be charged with brandishing in public when he shot someone in private did he?

          On the same vein, can the property owner of a mall drive around the mall parking structure while intoxicated?

          Why the heck not? So what? If he hurts people or almost hurts them there are no shortage of ass
          • I tend to agree with you, but distincting private property and public property is sometimes difficult. Ideally, it wouldn't be difficult to tell them apart, and if that were the case, I would completely agree with you.

            In my particular case, I discovered that the only way to drive into my community is to drive on a road owned by a private corporation (the owner of the nearby mall). This strange quirk has caused many a stir in our community -- especially because most people didn't know about it until af

            • If he creates an injury to you or your property you have something.

              Some courts might even accept the arguement that his behaviour is just scary to you even though he never got within 1000 yards of you and you could never pick him or his vehicle out of a lineup. If I were on the jury for that one you would definately have one vote against you :-)

              Borrowing from someone else's farm equipment example, the mall parking lot cleaning crew probably do not need licenses to drive those asphalt Zambonies, drunk or

        • This does seem really stupid on the surface, but there is a simple way to complexify ("complexify" is copyright 2003 by dagg) the situation. What if the private individual invites the public to drive into her property so she can sell them fresh milk and eggs? Is it still acceptable for her 23 year-old son to drive around her private grounds while intoxicated? What if her son crashes into your car and directly causes fatalities?

          Well, you don't usually need a license to operate farm equipment or such, that

  • I liked that conclusion. Striking down the anti-sodomy law is probably a good thing. At the very least it's in the "no skin off my teeth" category for me.

    The method of striking it down now opens up a whole new can of worms. While this may be pushing it a bit to the extreme (right to privacy in a public establishment?) the point still stands.

    Personally, I'm strongly of the "and it hurts no others, do what you will" belief.
  • The proposal here seems to talk about restricting businesses from charging for publicly available services -- not about restricting what I do in private.

    If anyone can walk in off the street and see the same routine, that'd be public. If money is charged, then it is a business. If I decide to go home and give/get lap dances with friends, I don't see any restrictions.

    Personally, I'm in favor of lap dances, but as much as I'm against restricting them, I also understand that the Government has lots of prece
    • I know where this is going.

      The gays are the only ones that can have lapdances! Just like some people get racial prefrences for college!

      The world has turned upside down. I was wrong, this is terrible!
      • Wow, the idea of gay lap dances is so *hot* that someone's gotta be charging for that particular service. Now I wonder if they'd let me watch ... nah, they'd prolly charge for that, too, and I'm too much of a cheapskate to pay.

Slashdot Top Deals

E Pluribus Unix

Close