07-21-2003, 04:30 AM
If you werent implying that I didnt understand, then my error :)
I do agree with the one poster who seemed to be saying that that in many cases this rather vile act was legal already.
However Harrije , you seemed to have totally missed my point about this unpleasant absurdity. It is not the subject any ruling you mentioned other than for privacy issues. And now it would be more or less impossible to make a law against it, due to the privacy ruling.
I made this post primarily because the escalating rhetoric of TV pundits struck me as funny.
I made it secondarily because it raises the interesting (interesting to me) question of whether it is ever reasonable to legislate purely on the basis of morality.
I do agree with the one poster who seemed to be saying that that in many cases this rather vile act was legal already.
However Harrije , you seemed to have totally missed my point about this unpleasant absurdity. It is not the subject any ruling you mentioned other than for privacy issues. And now it would be more or less impossible to make a law against it, due to the privacy ruling.
I made this post primarily because the escalating rhetoric of TV pundits struck me as funny.
I made it secondarily because it raises the interesting (interesting to me) question of whether it is ever reasonable to legislate purely on the basis of morality.