too cerebral for the list, man. we're all cracked out e-tards, remember ? On 8/13/06, VT Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...But the older I get, the less certain things seem to make sense. We all > make certain assumptions about things. Recently, I came up with a question I > just couldn't answer, not even with my assumptions. > > This is the part where I get sentimental. > > I finally took to task the question of whether dance permits are > actually legal. Now some of you have moved on to bigger and better > questions, but I don't think I can really do that until I can understand > what the status is, and why. > > My assumptions were "of course they're legal, otherwise they wouldn't be > law." But on what grounds are they legal? Questions of constitutionality > came to my mind, and I simply am not able to answer them. Not questions of > constitutionality based upon their wording, but because of the actual > practice of requiring permits. Maybe some of you can answer a couple of > these questions. > > 1. It is my understanding that government can limit individual rights so > long as "a legitimate state interest" exists. To that, I ask "What is the > compelling interest to require that people have permission from their local > government to dance?" What is it that seperates dancing from other > self-expression such as participating in a protest, writing, or perhaps > laughing during a movie, that do not require permission? > > 2. Free expression: This is not expressly written in the constitution > but respected none-the-less as inherent in the 1st amendment. Does it apply > to recreational activities (playing ball in the park, for example), that > have no inherent victim or other harm (drugs, fighting) to society? > > 3. Do dance permits set a precedent for requiring permits for other > recreational activities such as painting? Keep in mind here, I'm referring > to situations --inside of a privately owned building-- with the owner's > consent and no victim or harm to society. > > The answers to these seem like they would be simple, but to me they > simply are not. Via dancing and music and venues which allow us to do this, > we've all been able to self-express in some form or another. What is the > justification to require permission to dance as a form of self-expression, > and outright forbid it in certain forms? (after 2 a.m., in groups, etc) > Without a justification, would dance permits be unconstitutional? > > > Just thoughts. > > > --------------------------------- > Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > The DJ Denise mailing list http://www.djdenise.com/ >
-- SUPPORT BACTERIA. They're the only culture some people have. ___________________________________________________________________ The DJ Denise mailing list http://www.djdenise.com/
