[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....
- From: "Steve Hosgood" <steve(at)caederus.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:19:34 +0100
- In-reply-to: <3D3D4346.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> "State attorneys argued the law, which prohibits tattooing by anyone
> other than a doctor, is a public health issue. The justices upheld
> White's conviction, saying the First Amendment right to have a tattoo is
> a separate issue from the process of tattooing."
> How does one argue against that?
You probably don't. I can think of quite a few scenarios where a "right"
is only there under certain provisos. You have a "right" to be a doctor, but
you can only practice as a doctor if you get qualified to do so by certain
You have a "right" to drive, but if you want to do so on public highways, you
must have a valid driving licence. Etc.
Public health/safety issues will always infringe a bit on "rights" but
hopefully, under a sensible regime, both can co-exist without excessive
( In the UK, tattoo artists don't AFAIK have to be doctors, but if they're not
members of the Guild of Tattooists (or whatever) I suspect no-one would go
near them! )
The question is, does the US tattoo case (above) have any influence on whether
your DVD player has to be approved by the DVDCCA in order to play the DVDs *you
bought* (in the US)?
No public health/safety issues there, surely? :-)
In fact, I'm having trouble seeing any parallels at all between the two!
Steve Hosgood |
firstname.lastname@example.org | "A good plan today is better
Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow"
Fax: +44 70922 70944 | - Conrad Brean
http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )