Re:Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citi...
by vkou on Friday December 21, 2018 @08:20PM
(#18738246)
Every state, prior to the second half of the 20th century had sodomy laws - which made being in a homosexual relationship a felony, at best, and a death sentence, at worst.
Some states still have those laws on the books.
Re:Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citi...
by dgzl on Friday December 21, 2018 @08:32PM
(#18738304)
And I would hope that a respectable court would consider sexual acts to be acts of expression between parties, which is a protected right.
Re:Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citi...
by vkou on Friday December 21, 2018 @09:09PM
(#18738450)
Well, the courts weren't respectable, and tended to see it as an abominable perversion, and a crime against nature and public decency.
At the end of the day, you are convicted by a jury of your peers, and if your peers are God-fearing 19th century Puritans, some of whom, among other things, keep human beings as chattel slaves, you are not going to have a good time.
It wasn't some rogue politicians passing unpopular laws. The law reflected the opinions of the times.
Re:Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citi...
by hopler on Saturday December 22, 2018 @11:22AM
(#18741160)
Free speech (expression is not in the Constitution) is not predicated on consent. If sex is a protected act of expression, than so is any kind of physical assault.
Re:Indian government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt citi...
by bdhess on Saturday December 22, 2018 @03:08PM
(#18742206)
There’s definitely a consent factor to exercising your free speech rights. For example, you cannot loiter on my sidewalk at 2 AM expressing your free speech rights with a megaphone, since that would constitute harassment or breach of the peace, unless the neighborhood consented to hearing it.
Assault is a crime of violence; I think you’re looking for Battery as the comparison. Lack of consent is indeed one of the elements of Battery.
The legality of SSM was decided by individual states. While not 'sanctified' (up to religions ... for those who cared) or 'state-certified' (for those who cared), millions of same-sex relationships existed during those two centuries. Most of them un-persecuted.
I don't see any prohibition in my reading of the Constitution, which I'm pretty sure was designed to protect individual liberties from the powers of the State. Of course, there have always been so-called 'citizens' fond of their own liberty to deprive others of theirs.