Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
> Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
> 
> > to yourself. The burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that such
> > actions by a third party are a public nuisance.
> 
>    Bzzt, wrong anser. Thanks for playing.  A state and it's political 
> subdivisions does have the power to enact an ordinance DEFINING what 
> constitutes a public nuisance. They need merely protect 
> constitutionally-protected rights.

States don't enact ordinances, they enact laws. An ordinance is a regulation
which applies in a local municipality regulated by a charter. Laws are
enacted by a state or federal government regulated by a constitution. A
trivial distinction I agree. I would be willing to accept the premise that
in practice such terms are equivalent.

They have the right to enact such ordinances if their charter permits. No
community, state, or federal government in the US is given carte blanche in
regards to the creation of laws, regulation, and ordinances.

If you live in a state which permits the state government to enact such laws
then you have my sympathy. At least here in Texas the state government is
not given that job. It is left to the individual municipalities to define
public nuisance. Here in Austin the homeless were allowed to sleep at the
capitol because it is public property. Sad to say, that day is dead.
I oppose those changes as well. I believe it would be a good thing if more of
our public representatives had to face the homeless and other unpleasantries
in modern life on a personal and daily basis. They might be motivated to get
off their asses and serve the people instead of their campaign contributors.

Which constitution? The Federal government is tasked with upholding the
Constitution, not the states. The states are tasked with upholding their
individual Constitution provided they don't conflict with federal laws.
Municipalities are tasked with upholding their charters unless at odds with
the state or federal constitutions. You make it sound like my local city
council person is responsible for the Constitution, they are not any more
than I am.


> The City of Seattle may not define the act of disseminating anonymous 
> pamphlets as a nuisance. They may define the act of dissemination by 
> throwing them out the window of a moving vehicle, as a nuisance.

I would call it littering. There is litte reason to expect people to pick up
pamphlets from the middle of the street. As to handing them out, that is
protected. If the person you hand it to throws it down on the ground then
they are littering. It is called personal responsibility and respect for
oneself. From this springs respect for others.

> YOu are disconnected from reality. I am not going to waste further 
> keystrokes on this topic. My side already controls the electoral college 
> on this one. It's not my problem.

I may be disconnected from your reality, but reality is observer dependant.

But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just
now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a
little luck we might be able to make a difference. All those people out there
you look down upon living in the streets with mohawks and rings through
their clits listening to Pigface and Skinny Puppy get to make the decisions
now. My suggestion to those who support the status quo is to run, run very
fast. We are the ones your mother warned you about. Were pissed off enough
that we aren't going to use violence and such, we intend to use your own
system of rules against you.

                                               Ravage
                                                Black
                                                 Leather
                                                  Monster