digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at briancuban.com

Is There A Constitutional Right To An Orgy?

briancuban.com — Is there a constitutional right to have a sex orgy in the privacy of your own home?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MookiBlaylock, on 05/09/2008, -8/+63There better be. Good article brian.
    • theenginedriver, on 05/09/2008, -0/+24I'd say there's a constitutional obligation to have an orgy.
    • ubuwalker31, on 05/10/2008, -6/+14The article misses the legal issue in its entirety. It is constitutional to engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy of ones home and that behavior is beyond the power of the state to interfere with. So, if you want to sodomize your wife or boyfriend, or both at the same time, in the privacy of your own home, go for it. What you don't have the right to do, is to engage in consensual sexual activity in public, or charge for sex, or operate a house of ill repute. I think that inviting 100 people over for a party in the privacy of your home is fine, even if you want to have an orgy.
      However, once you start charging people a mandatory $5 to get in, and once you advertise the party on the internet and magazines to whoever wants to come, it sounds less like a private party, and more like a club. And this club even has a name! And nightclubs can be regulated by the state...why should this be any different?
      This just sounds like an unregulated club to me.
      • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5"What you don't have the right to do, is to engage in consensual sexual activity in public, or charge for sex, or operate a house of ill repute."

        While there are laws against this, they're wrong. The idea that sex is legal but charging for it is not is beyond asinine. Perhaps sex should be illegal in public places, but even that makes no logical sense.
      • alexforcefive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2I think you're getting to the crux of the issue here, which is that this is basically a judgement call. There are so many factors which taken individually might not make something illegal, but put together there's a pretty strong case. Like, it's legal to throw a party. It's legal to advertise that party on the internet (think facebook events). It's legal to have a cover charge. It's legal to have a sex party. But add all those things together, and we're getting dangerously close to operating a house of ill repute ;)

        Personally, I'll always side with the deviants - but if they're genuinely causing a nuisance I think they should have the good manners to relocate their parties.
    • Nerys, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8Well the problem is the city is NOT interested in REGULATING. They want to summarily eliminate. They did not say we hereby regulate this they said we hereby BAN THIS.
    • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3I don't see how this regulation is unconstitutional. The privacy and due process claims seem pretty weak. I predict a loss for the business owners.
  • LewP, on 05/09/2008, -26/+2I'm thinking this might be a great idea. NOT!
    • Surefly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3This suit is black not.
      • omnithought, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Pamela! I don't want to marry you anymore!
        .........NOT!!
  • pitlord, on 05/09/2008, -19/+149There are NO "Constitutional rights." The Constitution outlines the structure of our federal government which happens to be a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.
    Before the original 13 colonies would agree to ratify The Constitution they demanded that ten amendments be added to the law. Those amendments are commonly called our "Bill of Rights," which does outline certain basic rights that the colonies wanted to be sure the Federal government could NEVER infringe upon.
    ^^
    So, the term "constitutional right" is a misnomer.
    >.>
    No, the Bill of Rights does not mention orgies, but it doesn't prohibit them either.
    (X^P
    • moracity, on 05/09/2008, -15/+61Finally, an intelligent comment.

      When will people realize that the Constitution has nothing to do with rights? I don't think anyone understands what the Constitution actually is anymore. We don't get rights from the Constitution. Our rights were given to us by our creator. The Constitution creates the government and assigns powers to it. The amendments were added later to to address specific concerns of states in order to pass ratification.

      The powers of the government are enumerated in the Constitution, so if it's not there, the government can't do it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the government from doing things it has no power to do. Like the Dept of Education. Completely unconstitutional. The government was never given the power to force people to go to school or to use taxpayer money to fund said schooling.
      • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -24/+5This is not a criticism of your remark just a simple credibility question. What do you base your understanding on? What are your credentials to make such as statement. I base my understanding on 3 years of law school, passing two bar exams and 20 plus years of legal practice...
        • ZeroIce, on 05/09/2008, -4/+15You don't need to be an genius with years of school and experience to know what he just said. That is some basic knowledge.
        • Nerys, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12Well last time I checked 3 years of law school and 20 years of legal practice were NOT required to read and understand the PLAIN ENGLISH words of our constitution. Its also not required to understand that LEGALLY out constitution is EXPLICIT not IMPLICIT. YOUR a lawyer you SHOULD know what those words mean.

          let me help you. IMPLICIT means to IMPLY EXCPLICIT means WHat I say EXACTLY what I say and NOTHING ELSE except EXACTLY what I say.

          The DUTIES of the government are CLEARLY DEFINED in the constitution. the ONLY way "for example" that you could make the DOE lawful is to IMPLY that the constitution permits you to do that.

          ERRRRR BUZZZZZZZZZZ wrong answer did we already forget the constitution is EXPLICIT.

          If it does not SAY Department of Education THEN YOU CAN NOT FRAKING DO IT LAWFULLY !! Period End Of Discussion YOU LOSE sir.

          If they want the POWER to create the DOE there is one and ONLY one avenue open to them and that is the EXPLICIT ONE. IE AMEND the constitution to permit it.

          WHY do you think prohibition was a constitutional amendment? BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO BAN ALCOHOL the people at the time UNDERSTOOD this limitation and DID IT RIGHT by amending the constitution to PERMIT the government to ban alcohol. and thats also why getting RID of it also required ANOTHER amendment.

          a 4th grade level education is MORE than sufficient to READ and UNDERSTAND the constitution!!

          SO your credibility is the one I hold in question since it seems after 3 years of advanced school and passing 2 bar exams and 20+ years of law practice you have NO CLUE what the constitution is and how its applied legally in this country.

          NOW the OP is also incorrect the constitution DOES have something to do with rights. Where he is wrong is this. The constitution does not GRANT rights. RIGHTS by definition can not be GRANTED for anything that can be granted can also be taken away IE we call that a privilege.

          The Constitution is a LIMITING document. its purpose is to put a LEASH on government. It does not GRANT us anything it DEMANDS that government remain HANDS OFF on such and such. it also spells out PRECISELY and EXPLICITLY the LIMIT to what the government (not the citizens) can and can not do.

          The MAJORITY of the laws on the books today are outright illegal and violations of the constitution.
        • bcuban, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3You just finish Con Law 101 in high school?
        • madcat033, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Dude, appealing to authority is ***** and a logical fallacy. Your 3 years of law school and thousand years legal practice experience or whatever are meaningless. And I agree with the original poster. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, it doesn't grant the citizens rights. Citizens begin with full freedom and rights, and then the constitution explains what powers the government has to limit the freedoms of individuals.
        • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2As per the Declaration of Independence ( You ever read that in Law School? ), RIGHTS come from Our Creator.

          Happy Mother's Day, Mom!
      • HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -6/+20Which creator was that again?
        • jeffiek, on 05/09/2008, -2/+52Irrelevant. When used in "Our rights were given to us by our creator", it can mean anything. Created by God, created by evolution, even created by little green men.

          The important part is that they were NOT created by government, or any other human association. They are inherent to mankind's existence.

          They are inalienable.
          • mickstephenson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10Unless of course you are suspected of terrorism
          • humperdeath, on 05/09/2008, -12/+2The rights are God given or in Alien-able , which is it? or is God an alien?
          • thomashauk, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Except the human association of your parents
          • Fordi, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2You've got it all wrong. We were created recursively, by a time travelling human from the year 5∮C3ↂ12.
          • gymbrall, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2Inalienable means that they cannot be sold or given away. Explain again how that definition is creator agnostic... How can evolution grant us rights that we cannot sell or give away?
          • HonestAbe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"Nonsense upon stilts."
        • slvrbullet87, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2How about evolution as your creator, that would also work
        • SteeleJK, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4@ jeffiek
          I disagree completely. Evolution does not grant "rights" to people in a nation and neither does existence in itself. Rights are man-made construct and are applied subjectively by society.
          -- Human rights have become indispensable to the contemporary understanding of how human beings should be treated, by one another and by national and international political bodies.
          So yes, as HonesAbe said, which creator is handing out these absolute human rights?
          • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3They are simply innate.
          • madcat033, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Yeah dude, humans are born free and equal. We then create social structures, like governments, where we willingly trade some of our absolute liberty for government.

            The constitution then outlines the pact between people and the government. It states what powers the PEOPLE grant to their government.
          • gymbrall, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1You've hit on the real problem that non-religious lovers of the constitution have. The Constitution presumes that there is a being that transcends man that gives man these rights. It is impossible to logically define these rights as being inalienable without acknowledging a transcendent willful being (you have to posit that they are axiomatically inalienable, which becomes problematic)

            In the end, you come to the understanding that faith is the basis of reason (how do I know that I know what I know) and not the absence of it as so many people claim.
          • afruff23, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3@SteeleJK

            People are self-owners. It's as simple as that. Their bodies are their property and thus they have full rights and control over them.

            @madcat033

            I never agreed to trade anything to the government. Thus, this can not be described as "volutnary". It is clearly a form of force. It is even more obvious when you see all the Statists give vague generalities like "the people".
          • HonestAbe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It was originally voluntary. Voluntarily move into a walled city and you are required to follow a set of rules that may be different from other cities. But the system of trading rights for rights works so well that civilizations that follow it have expanded and merged to cover all land on Earth. Now it's not so voluntary, but living in a natural state with no rules, laws, or rights whatsoever is certainly a worse deal.
        • Chandon, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2The theistic creator that the drafters of the document based their philosophy on. The philosophical structure of our government was designed on a fiction, but that's OK because the results are desirable even for those of us who get there from a different direction philosophically.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/09/2008, -4/+6Funny how that works out, that Thomas Jefferson was one of the founding fathers of our public school system. He was one of the first to suggest the idea of taxpayer-funded education.
        • gbates31, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4It is pretty funny. Jefferson also warned against the forming of parties, but wasn't he involved in the Democratic-Republican Party? Still a good guy, though.
        • staffa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7Jefferson believed very strongly in local governance. Certaintly a local district could and should raise taxes to support a public school system. His idea of what the federal government should do no where near involved publically financed public school system.

          With regards to parties
          Early on he believed parties to be unnecessary and to the detriment of better governance, later in life, after more experience in government, he felt parties, while not ideal, where a useful means to an end.


          • macweirdo42, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Um, yes, in fact, he did believe in federal school funding. He felt an education should be guaranteed to all citizens.
          • Chandon, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2macweirdo42: Reference?
          • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3He felt a party was necessary because his opponents were forming a political party which cold corrupt politics. His opponents, of course, felt the same way. It was like a cold war in a sense.
          • afruff23, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1TJ willingly corrupted his own values to not outside pressures. These false narratives you create about the "founding fathers" detracts from the reality that these were brutal and corrupt people.

            http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/molyneux/molyneu ...
      • poptartrevival, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4I'm sorry but compulsory education is a joke. The only reason they go after kids who don't show up is because they don't get paid if a child is absent. If you want an education, you should have one. If you want to screw around all day, live and learn.
        • Chandon, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4There's a really good argument that society can't function at a reasonable level without an educated populace. On the other hand, there's a good argument that current public education strategies don't produce an educated populace.
        • konspence, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Don't you think that there are parents who, out of neglect, wouldn't bother taking their child to school?

          If I were a child whose parents did not send me to school, I would feel like my life was altered by uncontrollable circumstances (ie who I have for parents). So while there is a level where the government should not do the parenting, I think that education is a right that all children should have.
        • afruff23, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1@Chandon

          And then there's the ridiculous notion that a government can change a culture. It is one of the most arrogant and naive ideas of our time.
      • fatdog789, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3I believe he is referring to Brahma. Or maybe Zoraster. It's pretty clear that it's not Jehova.
      • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2"The government was never given the power to force people to go to school or to use taxpayer money to fund said schooling."

        Dumbass, the states aren't FORCED to comply with Deptartment of Education regulations at all. The DoE regulations only attach if the state accepts federal funding. Don't like the regulations? Don't take the money!

        States are free to ignore the DoE entirely. It's just that they'll have to fund all their public schools themselves. It's not the federal government's fault that states don't want to do this.
        • zigurd, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Let's see a state, any state, put that into practice. If it isn't an option in practice, it is merely an illusion.
          • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2How do you figure? How do you think the federal government is going to force schools to take its money?

            In any case, how do you think the federal government punishes states that don't comply with the DoE's regulations? That's right, *****: by withholding federal funding. You think the DoE is going to send in jack booted thugs to Mississippi schools if Mississippi decides not to follow DoE regulations? Just what is your argument, zigurd?

            You still haven't explained how it violates the constitution for the federal government to offer money to the states and to attach conditions to the use of that money.

            Why don't you give it a shot, Justice zigurd? I'd like to hear your argument.
        • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2WHERE are the feds getting the money in the first place? Why take it out on the federal side, and then give it back as a CDBG unless they really wanted the strings of control?

          They could, you know, just not take that much tax?
          • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1We're talking about the constitution here. If you think the constitution prohibits the government from levying taxes and using those funds to promote the general welfare, please tell us why.

            Otherwise, please try to stay on point.
        • lrdntwnd, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1@mikelieman:
          Of course they want control. That's the point of the constitution. The writers of that document understood the natural urge to seize power and tried to limit it as much as they could. However, their inability to see the future kept them from putting the limits in place that would have kept the government from becoming the behemoth that it is today. There's a reason there wasn't a White House for the first three presidents... They didn't need to work year-round. The federal, elected officials shouldn't work year-round and certainly shouldn't be paid the extravagant amounts which are given to them.

          Plus, the federal government has no right to tax the citizens of this country, unless those citizens take advantage of federal services (there are very few people who don't, whether they know it or not). So, since you went to a public school, you pay your income tax (and the property taxes that your local government takes to help pay for your local services) and everyone is happy. But, if you can find a way to avoid being involved with any federal services (good luck) you could get away with not paying federal taxes.

          In times of crisis, we tend to look the other way when the government offers a helping hand and that's exactly what happened during the Great Depression. We allowed the federal government to create institutions and policies that it had no business creating and during every period of turmoil since, we have given up more and more freedom. Read a book called "The Shock Doctrine." It describes the thinking behind the seizure of power... As morally reprehensible as it is, many of the global conflicts/tragedies which have occurred have given rise to larger and more powerful governments. Look at the military draft during Vietnam... The government doesn't have that power, but since we feared Communism so much for so long, we were willing to give up rights to help fight that evil from spreading around the globe. Only once we realized what the true cost was did we fight back... Just something to think about....
          • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1"Plus, the federal government has no right to tax the citizens of this country, unless those citizens take advantage of federal services (there are very few people who don't, whether they know it or not)."

            Are you getting this from the US Constitution?

            "But, if you can find a way to avoid being involved with any federal services (good luck) you could get away with not paying federal taxes."

            I'm still waiting for you to refer to a provision in the constitution that supports your argument. And by constitution, I mean as it's actually written. Not as you might wish it was written.
    • PeppermintPig, on 05/09/2008, -0/+33And no single scrap of paper could ever actually 'create' these rights. US government is supposed to recognize these rights, and restrain itself from infringing upon them.
      • Chandon, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5The US government was never expected to restrain itself. That's the job of the citizens.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The government is made up of citizens.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+15Ninth amendment FTW.
    • LifeIsARhythm, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10not to nit pick but, the constitution was ratified by the last state a full year before the amendments were added
    • trogdor282, on 05/09/2008, -1/+13Yup. Our country represents a fundamental breakthrough in human thought - that government CANNOT grant rights, it can only recognize (or infringe) on them.
      • dragis101, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Step One: Read a couple essays by John Locke. There aren't any pictures, you might need to take a break.
        Step Two: Take a nap.
      • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Yes, but no one gives a ***** about this anymore. I'm a libertarian; this is my ***** philosophy: we have these innate rights, we can do whatever we want provided it doesn't infringe on others' rights, and the government is violating them! People say doing drugs is illegal. It is, but we still have the right to do them; it's just a right that the government will forcibly imprison us for, because they're violating our rights.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1But that's nonsense. If you believe that humans have innate rights, then you believe that animals have them, too. I don't see any mice protesting against the oppression of cats. The natural state of all animals is to be exploited or to exploit others. Rights are a man-made social contract in which people exchange privileges for their mutual benefit.
    • hikaruzero, on 05/09/2008, -7/+26I hate to break it to you, but the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the Constitution. It's still the Constitution. No, it's not the same as when it was ratified, but an amendment that gives Americans "the right to bear arms" is still an amendment that is a part of what is known as "the Constitution."

      So there ARE, in fact, constitutional rights, because the amended constitution specifically guarantees them.
      • boobsbr, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5i thought the same thing, if something is an amendment to a document, then it is part of the document.
      • Nerys, on 05/10/2008, -3/+8The Constitution does NOT grant you the right to bear arms. It stipulates that this right YOU ALREADY POSSES can not be infringed by the government.
      • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1You're right, but you can't selectively read words out of context like you just did with the 2nd Amendment. At least not if you claim to honor the actual meaning of the provisions you're citing.
      • Chandon, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Saying "constitutionally guaranteed rights" might be clearer.
        • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2I think "things the Feds are NEVER allowed to do" is even clearer.
      • Fordi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7The bill of rights is a set of restrictions on government activity, enacted in order to avoid infringing on individuals' rights.

        You start with the right to do everything. Government then (ideally) takes rights away from you that infringe on others.
    • JayhawkBrandon, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2The question here is whether a validly enacted state or city law infringes upon a right protected by the 14th Amendment. The right as issue is the "right of privacy" as discussed in the article.
      • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Good luck finding the word "privacy" in the constitution.
        • zigurd, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2You have the horse by the wrong end. Rights are not enumerated. Legitimate powers of government are.
          • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1And...? Are you going to point to me to the constitutional provision that says "the right to privacy shall not be infringed?"
          • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Why?

            Since the authority to infringe your privacy is NEVER delegated to the feds in the Constitution or it's Amendments, then the feds simply can NEVER do anything to infringe on that privacy.

            That's how we keep costs down -- by explicitly enumerating the valid authorities of the State, and then only hiring as many State Workers as necessary to fulfill those requirements. Like Customs, All the crap delegeated in Section I, Article 8, etc...

          • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Does your copy constitution contain the 4th Amendment? Because mine says the government can conduct "reasonable" searches and seizures.

            "the feds simply can NEVER do anything to infringe on that privacy."

            Ok, yeah. I guess that's why the cops can never search anyone. I guess that's why the FBI never wiretapped John Gotti. I guess that why...oh, what the hell, what IS your argument here?

            "Like Customs, All the crap delegeated in Section I, Article 8, etc"

            Sorry, did you mean Article I, Section 8? I thought we were talking about the US consitution. My bad if we're talking about some other document.

            In any case, please refer to specific provisions when referencing the constitution. It saves everyone the trouble of having to reverse engineer your stupidity.
          • JayhawkBrandon, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Petro.... not the 4th Amendment! Gah!
        • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1It's pretty funny that the founding fathers over 200 years ago actually pre-empted your argument. They knew people like you would come along, hence the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
          In other words, just because they decided to write out some rights, doesn't mean no other right existed, so we don't have to find the right to privacy written out word for word. It's the job of the courts to see the way our country evolves, to interpret the rest of the constitution, and to search common law to find confluences that lead them to believe that they need to explicitly spell out another right we have (of course just because they choose not to explicitly spell a right out doesn't mean we don't have it).
          This is what was done with the right to privacy. If you really want to find it in the constitution just look at 4th amendment rights about searches and being "secure in your person and property", 3rd amendment rights about quartering, 1st amendment right to assemble, etc ... All of these enumerated rights point to the umbrella concept of an unenumerated right to privacy.
    • enicholas, on 05/09/2008, -2/+19Useless pedantry. First, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. No, it wasn't present when the Constitution was first written, but what part of "Constitutional Rights" implies that they had to be present in Constitution 1.0 back in the 1700s? I don't say "Microsoft Windows doesn't support such-and-such feature" merely because Windows 3.0 didn't support it.

      Second, technically the intent is that we start out with the right to do anything, and then laws are enacted to take away specific rights (smoking pot, for example). So technically the second amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms, it prohibits the government from taking away our right to bear arms. But that's a useless distinction -- if the second amendment didn't exist, the government would have taken that right away from us by now. So you could just as easily argue that the amendment did give us that right, because otherwise we wouldn't have it anymore.
    • ryusen, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0i think you are arguing semantic technicalities. while the original constitution doesn't grant a list of rights, the bill of rights do talk about certain rights that the government is not allowed to take away form us. So while our inalienable rights are endowed by our creator, the constitution (in amendments) does guarantee those rights.
    • somberwolf, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1The US Constitution is a actually a "Democratic Republic." In a pure Republic, there would be no elections. The People's Republic of China is closer to a pure Republic, for example. But under the US Constitution "we the people" have always democratically elected our representatives and our president (although the Senate was not originally set up this way). While it is true the founders feared a pure Democracy, they feared tyranny even more. So the "great experiment" was to democratically elect representatives.
      Sorry. I know Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and many other, mostly right-wing people are fond of saying that the USA is "not a Democracy but a Republic." They are simply wrong. Even by definition.
  • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -7/+21Guess I went to law school for nothing..
    • LewP, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Well Brian, you did say your school was down in the rankings..LOLOL just kidding man.
    • pitlord, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7Well, assuming you passed the BAR you earned the right to screw… er, um charge clients exorbitant hourly rates for acting as little more than a glorified secretary fluent in the arcane language of Legalese.
      (X^P
      But that's okay, parasites are part of the food chain too.
      >.>

      • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9You have not heard? We have dropped below used car salesman and now are just one step above crack dealers in credibility... :o)
    • dragis101, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Yeah, you know. Just like those jerks in the white coats who charge exorbitant prices. I mean, all they do is prescribe drugs in handwriting no one can read...anyone could do that!
  • AlwaysAwake, on 05/09/2008, -3/+9Anyone attending an orgy has this question so low on the priority list, it is not even a blip on the radar. I speak from memories of personal experience. At my age, I don't get many invitations to orgies anymore, and I really got bored with it a very long time ago anyway.
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -1/+17well you have one up on a lot of us. We were never even given the opportunity to get bored with it.....
    • haikuFU, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10Orgies are an interesting thing. Back before the internet was popular, you had to "know" someone. I was at a party back in college, and I met a group of 5 or 6 people there and was talking to them. They decided to leave, and said "we're heading to an orgy, wanna go?" How the hell do you pass on something like that? It's not every day you get invited to an orgy... until you start hanging out with people in the scene.

      But, it does get boring, because it tends to always be the same people, and the same drama. But initially, you're like a kid in a candy store. And a GREAT pick up line for girls at bars was "I'm heading over to an orgy in a few, wanna come check it out?" I'd say about half of the women I asked that to said yes.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4From experience, I have yet to meet hot people in orgies where the average age is over 21. But really, if you're in one, "hotness" is probably pretty far down your list. Matching parts is usually the greater concern.
    • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3I was at an orgy once and most of the people were fat and disgusting.
  • CrackpotPress, on 05/09/2008, -2/+89Uh Ben Franlklin used to a member of several orgy clubs. Good enough for him.. good enough for me.
  • whoreable, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3"bring out the gimp".... Good one. =D
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2One of the classic movie lines of all time!
  • Abomonog, on 05/09/2008, -4/+31"The owners of the Cherry PIt subsequently counter sued the city claiming the ordinance banning sex clubs violates their privacy and due process rights. They are basically using the same argument under which a right to privacy was found under Roe v. Wade. They have to use this method in making the right to privacy argument because there is in fact no right to personal privacy spelled out in the Constitution."

    Actually, it's in the 4th amendment. That "security from search and seizure" thing is the sticky point. Had it merely said "security from seizure" then rightfully anyone would be able to peruse your life and belongings so long as they didn't take anything. But it's that word "search". It means more than to just go looking for something. It also means just to "come to know" something. Meaning that if you merely inquire about what is happening at your next door neighbors house you are conducting a search. By the sheer definition of search your right to privacy is guaranteed as any inquiry into your life or home is a search by definition and prohibited by the constitution.

    It is this right to privacy that allows the existence of peeping tom laws. Otherwise those laws could not exist as they would violate the main body of the constitution. It is the same right to privacy coupled with freedom of the press that allows you to watch pornography.

    The 4th Amendment is the second strongest amendment in our Constitution with exception of the first. Without it the first, second, third, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments in our Bill of Rights mean nothing because the expectation of privacy is what determines when and where you are actually covered all these other rights and the other amendments they protect.

    For example. We can slander and insult El Presidente' Bush personal problems all day long at home. Call him gay, say he ***** his mother, whatever. We can do this at home among friends and expect not to receive any backlash. We are ***** in private, it's harmless *****, and that ***** is covered by the 1st and 4th Amendments. But when you say the same things on national television it is no longer private and you have voluntarily given up the 4th Amendment. You have given up that security. What you said may still be protect under the !st Amendment, but you are allowing people to "search" your thoughts by making them public and if those words are ***** enough, you can still be sued civilly even if you are protected from government prosecution.

    It is the expectation of privacy that defines the 4th Amendment and therefore the 4th Amendment protects your privacy even though it does not directly say so.
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -7/+4I appreciate the time and effort you put into that but I did learn a few things in law school and this is NOT fourth amendment issue!
      • a6n28f, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5No, that is how those who educated you chose to interpret the word "search" by only recognizing some of its definitions. There is actually precedent, albeit limited, for Abomonog's interpretation.
      • JayhawkBrandon, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5 In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:

        "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”

        http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c ...

        Due Process - 14th Amendment.
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1To give you a little clarification-A Fourth Amendment issue would be if the police entered the home looking for evidence that the home was being operated as an illegal sex club and did so without a search warrant specifying what they were looking for... THAT would be a Fourth Amendment Issue....
      • a6n28f, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3That does not contradict anything he posted. What part are you attempting to correct?
        • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1"Actually, it's in the 4th amendment. That "security from search and seizure" thing is the sticky point"

          I was trying to correct/clarify the above...

          Brian
          • Nerys, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Except you failed to correct anything? what am I missing?
    • jeffiek, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Actually, it's "against unreasonable searches".

      Guess who defines unreasonable? Hint - it ain't you and it ain't me.
      • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1lol-point taken!
      • Nescirian, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Technically, it is "you and me", or the average man on the street.
        But the lawyers are pretty good at deciding what they'd like to be reasonable without consulting the "reasonable man".
    • Rndm_Tngnt, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4The Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy has nothing to do with peeping tom laws. No rights are doled out by the Constitution. Only restrictions on what powers the government has.

      The Bill of Rights covers interactions between the government and the people, not people and other people.
      • hikaruzero, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

        Look it up, it is IN THE CONSTITUTION.

        There ARE constitutional rights, thanks to the *amendments* to the constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights. If I make a comment on Digg, and then I edit that comment to add something else, it is still my comment. Likewise, the constitution is still the constitution even when it has been amended to add rights.

        Otherwise, why would it even be called the Bill of *Rights*?

        Constitutional rights do exist, and you need to look no further than the actual wording of the Constitution.

        But, you are right in that the Bill of Rights does not cover interactions between individual citizens; only between citizens and the government.
      • coreman, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2But...when people invoke the Government to either protect or enforce their views/opinions/legal options, well, then it's no longer just a person-person problem.
      • Abomonog, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Actually it does. Without the 4th Amendment A peeping toms activities are protected as per the preamble of the constitution. In fact without the 4th Amendment the preamble would have made much illegal activity legal. No the constitution does not dole out rights. It gives them to you buy guaranteeing that they will protected from those who would take them away.
    • JayhawkBrandon, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2This is a 14th Amendment "right of privacy" issue as the original article says. (like Roe v. Wade) See Lawrence v. Texas.
    • LawDigger, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2It's fortunate that you are not a lawyer because then you would realize that your analysis is hilariously off the mark.
    • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1"It is this right to privacy that allows the existence of peeping tom laws"

      No it isn't.
      • Abomonog, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Actually it is. Before our Constitution and it's expectation of privacy everyones private lives were community property. If you were in bed with the wrong person in the 18th century and someone decided to "look in" on you you were the one going into the stocks. Adultery was a big crime back then and the best way to catch someone doing it was too look through their windows. The 4th Amendment was the ground work for all of the laws (including the 14th Amendment) pertaining to right of privacy and belonging. It pertains to peeping toms because without the 4th Amendment all other laws pertaining to privacy mean nothing.

        Just because it doesn't directly say that you can't look into windows doesn't mean that it doesn't deal with the situation.
    • jogleby, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Nice arguement. However, I'm going to have to dock you points for using the phrase "sticky points" in reference to an article about an orgy.
    • mfc5200, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I liked your response, but there is one thing I disagree with.

      The most important amendment is the 2nd amendment, becase it is the amendment that lets the people make sure the other nine are being followed correctly. If they aren't, it's time to bust out the militias, and put the federal government back in line.
  • Nhmarine, on 05/09/2008, -5/+10If we didn't have the right to orgies would we have the right to sex at all? Wait, we don't have the right to any sex of any kind because we have to be abstinent and not have premarital sex. Stupid bible.... /sarcasm. Sex (whether premarital or in an orgie or whatever) FTW.
  • thelastcivilian, on 05/09/2008, -6/+13Legality aside, if they want this to be considered a "private" arrangement, then they should keep it quiet. Instead, they're advertising and collecting money - if they weren't doing this, neighbours would just think they liked to have house parties.
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3agreed! My motto is that its always better to simply have a good time than announce to the world that you are having a good time!
      • Llanowar, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Not in our current twitter age.
      • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2With all due respect, I fon't give a ***** what your motto is.It's good advice, sure, but that shouldn't matter in the eyes of the law. There should be no distinction between advertising it and not advertising it. Hell, there should be no distinction between charging admission and not charging admission.
        • triad203, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Actually, no. If you are advertising it, the fact that you are having a sex-party then becomes public, and hence you are voluntarily giving up your expectation of privacy. If it's illegal to do it in the first place, and they advertise it, then I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. I still think it ought to be legal, but that's a somewhat different discussion.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah, that's what the analysis of the case rests on in my opinion. I think that the right to privacy is pretty clear in this day and age; however, I believe that the right to privacy is a personal, and not a business right. Therefore this case rests on whether or not one considers this place a business.
        They could very well announce on the internet on their intentions, maybe they get off on announcing they're having an orgy, and that would be ok in my eyes, instead though they _advertise_ and advertising has certain qualities that go along with it: e.g. they intend that advertisement to attract people, A.K.A bring in more customers. These qualities turn the orgy from a private affair to a public interest, and so I think the city council ordinance should be upheld.
  • wynja, on 05/09/2008, -1/+20I wanna know how you get on the Reservation list..... anybody?
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2That place is getting so much publicity, I am waiting for someone to hack that list and publish it on their blog!
    • rancidpony, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1From their website:
      http://cherrypit.org/home.htm
      " * How do we join a party.
      * The best way to join us at a party is to Call Jim and Julie the Hosts and get to know them. They host the parties in their home, and love to teach new couples about the swinging lifestyle.
      * You can also join the yahoo group to meet others who have attended parties, but these are private parties in a private home so you MUST CALL to get an invitation."
    • innocentsinner, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Have a woman.
      • wynja, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I got that covered a few times over........ sorry no single guys allowed. You should go cruise the local pron store for trannies.
    • chrishiggins, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Not have a Digg account.
  • bringmeupmusic, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Like the scene in Zoolander. Yeah baby!
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2forgot about zoolander!
    • dynelol, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4When she was sandwiched between the finnish elf and the mayori tribesman?
  • HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I sure hope so.
  • pamil, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4It doesn't have to be constitutional as long as it happens in the privacy of one's home between consensual adults.
    • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5very true unless they are charging admission then its a business. Just like having your buddies over to play cards. If you take a cut of the pots, it is not longer a friendly game and it is an illegal gambling operation. profit motive is key. Just follow the money......
      • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Right, but that law is wrong. It SHOULD NOT matter whether or not money changes hands. That's supposed to be a bedrock idea of our free market. People are free to engage in whatever they want, so long as it's consensual.
    • jeffiek, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Let me introduce you to the phrase "sodomy laws". They're still active (although rarely enforced) in several states.

      Yes, a man and his wife are currently in prison for having oral sex.
      • PolarBearCa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1That sucks.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Supreme court threw out all sodomy laws a couple of years ago.

        http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

        Hassel said the ruling, based on due process arguments rather than equal protection laws, would push out new areas in privacy. "This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it."
      • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Sodomy laws were ruled unconstutitional in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
      • Abomonog, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Sadly, there is some truth to what jeffiek says. Yes the Supreme threw out sodomy laws but most of the conservative states have ignored this ruling and are still prosecuting sodomy cases. Virginia just had one a few months ago. The only difference is that now they only go after people who cannot afford to fight the charges.
    • jeffiek, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Update. It seems time has gone by faster than I thought. (hey, after a certain age the distinction between last decade and the one before becomes meaningless) They're out now. You can read more here:

      http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm
      • bcuban, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2No worse than Marcus Dixon and Genarlow Wilson in Ga. Convicted as Child molesters for having teen sex with girls less than two years younger than them. (both were released when convictions overturned.)
  • BigManOnCampus, on 05/09/2008, -2/+29You actually have a god-given right to an orgy, as ironic as that may sound.
  • pedo, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7its called the 9th amendment retards

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    • 10scott10, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4not, what it says is the government cant be asses and use the amendments for purposes that goes against the spirit of them.

      but the tenth amendment gives any power not given to federal governement to the states. so you state culd have passed something saying they weren't allowed, and it could still be allowable.
      • pedo, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1it doesn't say anything about "the spirit" of the amendments or anything about the government being an ass.

        it says in plain english, just because we've listed certain rights here, doesn't mean that these are the only rights people have. and it doesn't mean that we are denying other rights that people have. i don't see whats so complicated about it.
  • soulkitchen, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5With this level of publicity the Cherry Pit could start franchising now.
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2A better question is why would anyone care whether it's illegal or not?

    If that's who you are, that's who you are. No law will change it, but it will allow others who are not like you, to control you.
  • Phyraxus, on 05/09/2008, -3/+21"You can’t do cocaine in the privacy of your home….. You can’t shoot up heroin in the privacy of your home, You cant run a gambling operation in the privacy of your home."
    You should have the right to do these things as well.
    • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Actually, doing drugs is not illegal. It's only possession that's illegal.
    • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Absolutely!
    • TomatoMan, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3I'm fine with people doing whatever drugs they want in the privacy of their own home, as long as:

      - They stay in the house until it wears off and they're no longer a danger to people in public (e.g. no driving when you're wasted)
      - They have no dependents who need their alert and capable care (kids, pets)
      - They waive their right to taxpayer-funded medical treatment or transportation for problems resulting from it

      In other words, if they take FULL responsibility for their actions and don't burden their dependents or society at large with them.
    • blackrich, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Yes you can.
  • daxsymbiont, on 05/09/2008, -13/+2Is there a constitutional right to GET YOUR ASS OFF DIGG AND GET A LIFE?
    • Serial0Hacker, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1No
    • igotlaidoff, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2If getting off my ass involves meeting other diggers at The Cherry pit, i'll stay on digg.
    • dynelol, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Take your own advice, ***** stain.
    • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Well, yeah. There's nothing against that, so we have that right.
  • icedm, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1ha this was a good one diggnation.... great comments too, some digg..... ha here is our new statement

    that was Some Digg
  • BesideYouInTime, on 05/09/2008, -2/+13"You can’t do cocaine in the privacy of your home….. You can’t shoot up heroin in the privacy of your home, You cant run a gambling operation in the privacy of your home and guess what? You can not charge people for the privilege of having indiscriminate, anonymous sex in your home." (Well, why the hell not?)
    • poptartrevival, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7You can if you're an upper class (insert party name here)! What's good for them just doesn't seem to be good for us. I guess we plebes just can't handle drunken drug fueled orgies. Just imagine if we could, we might not buy all the crap pharmaceuticals on tv
  • gbates31, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9Another thing to harp on is that government, no matter how many laws they pass, cannot take away your rights. You only have the rights you're willing to fight for.
  • PolarBearCa, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7I'm thinking that since they charge a fee it's not so much a private residence as a Bed-and-Bangfest...
  • RickyBarnes1960, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12Constitutional or not, yes, you have the right to host an orgy in the privacy of your own home. One is born with rights, they cannot be given or taken away. Your rights are rooted in your ownership of your own life. The question isn't whether you have the right - of course you have the right, the question is whether or not you are at liberty to exercise that right. "Liberty" means you are free of the external impositions of others on the exercise of your individual rights. The question becomes - do others have the right to impose on your rights? The answer is clearly - NO, however, they may be at liberty to do so based on cultural rules or laws. This issue isn't over rights, it's over who is at liberty to impose their views upon whom ... and why.
    In my usual opinion, the liberties of individuals to impose themselves on others in human culture have been irrationally granted in most cases. This is a case of the less mature granted too much liberty and the mature being granted far too little. How long will we allow the immature to dictate to the mature in our cultures? When will the mature finally become the majority?
    • LawDigger, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Cool analysis. You may be philosophically right, but legally dead wrong.
      • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I DON'T GIVE A FLYING ***** ABOUT THE LAW! If the government wants to infringe on my rights, ***** them! The only reason they have such power is because they have a monopoly on violence. If we are truly a free nation, we ought to be governed according to the philosophy above. People have the innate right to do whatever they want, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others. Sure, there are tons of laws that violate this. THose laws are wrong, plain and simple, and we should try to get them changed or acquit those convicted of them.
  • DesignFan, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0In your own home, I am sure that you do. Out in public, another story...
  • omnithought, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4It should be mandatory! ;)
  • mnemy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I can see why the neighbors are upset. I guess their homeowners assoc doesn't have any rules against mass orgies. Go figure.
    As long as this is non-profit, it is perfectly legal. The author's argument that it's equivalent to shooting up heroine is invalid. Heroine is illegal, sex with consenting adults is not.
  • laserblazer, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3"I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged." —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at Harvard

    For the piece of crap that is Scalia, this at least seems on-point.
    • petrodollar, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1The operative words are "for the sake of argument." That statement tells you nothing about what Nino actually thinks.
  • AtWorkSurfer, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Did anybody see this comment under the linked article?
    Jackie Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
    I hope the Cherry Pit wins so that Ed Klein will pay the child support he owes.
    Our daughter has not received any financial support from her father since 2007. Maybe the Cherry Pit could have a fundraiser so that his daughter could have a 7th birthday party.

    Ed Klein is the attorney representing the Cherry Pitt, and, according to Jackie (his ex wife, I presume), he's late on his child support. Yikes! How's that for getting called out in public?
  • dynelol, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Any way you want it that's the way you need it any way you want it!
  • nutmeat, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2good luck appealing social engineering in texas
  • identitymatrix, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure /hc/ is the closest I'll ever be able to get to this.
  • ShempRider, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7FTA:"You can’t do cocaine in the privacy of your home…."
    Actually, you CAN.
    But that still doesn't make it LEGAL vis-a-vis the United States Code and the codes of the many States.

    /Done with nitpicking, which lawyers do.
  • Ubergoober3, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1it depends if you think of the constitution with a strict construction, meaning you can only do things mentioned on the constitution, or a loose constitution, meaning you can do anything not forbidden by the constitution.
    • LawDigger, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2You are misconstruing strict and loose constructionism. They mean neither of these things.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3This warrants further investigation. I nominate myself to observe a weekend at the Cherry Pit to make sure nothing fishy is going on.
  • j4nj1m3n3z, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2There is in Utopia. Orgy Porgy they say.
    • thecatcantalk, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Oooo, doubleplus good! Pass the soma, brother...
      • Auran98, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Can you at least get your literaries straight?

        soma and orgy porgy = Brave New World [Huxley]
        doubleplus good = 1984 [Orwell]

        not the same one!

        PS. on a pedantic note, you should have your own soma anyway :P
  • AWBoy666, on 05/10/2008, -2/+10As much of a conservative bastard as I am, I will NEVER endorse the government inflicting morality upon its constituents. The decisions and actions or citizens in their own private lives should not be dictated by any government entity.
  • rdotson, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3The Constitution does not "give" rights to people, it's sole purpose is to restrict the government while authorizing certain *limited* privileges to the government. The limited privileges allowed to the government are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
  • Ymeg, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1oops, digg down.
  • Minarchian, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6"They have to use this method in making the right to privacy argument because there is in fact no right to personal privacy spelled out in the Constitution."

    False!

    Read the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    Just because it's not expressly written within the Constitution does not mean you do not have a Right to do it.
    • xman00, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Also, the Supreme Court has been consistently ruling that the right to privacy exists for over 100 years, starting with this ruling in 1891:

      Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford: The High Court rejected the right of a defendant in a civil action to compel the plaintiff to submit to physical examination, writing that "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others . . ."

      Full history of Supreme Court privacy rulings are here:
      http://www.reproductiverights.org/crt_roe_timeline ...

      Just because Conservatives repeatedly say "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, does not make it so.
  • harrisbradley, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Yes, it would be the right to assemble.
  • Midtowner, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1The right to have sexual relations is a fundamental right under substantive due process. I don't think there's any question that you have the right to hook up with randoms. Where I think the city wins is under the Renton secondary effects doctrine. The state may proscribe certain sorts of normally protected activity, and will be justified in doing so if it is to curb the harmful secondary effects. In this case, the city might have a study which shows that this sort of establishment is responsible for a higher incidence of drug crime or STD transmission. That'd be enough, I think.

    -- and whoever said 10th Amendment, the 10th Amendment grants to the states anything not retained by the feds. Amongst those powers is the right to regulate morality and public health.

    The only question here is first whether there are secondary effects that can be legislated against. If there are, the city only has to show that there's a legitimate governmental goal. If the city can't show the secondary effects, then the Cherry Pit (or whatever it's called) will probably win.

    -- We shall see. There's an interesting conflict of potential rights and powers here.
  • rancidpony, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6By all means, I have no issue doing what they want. But 200 people per weekend at $50 each in a residential area? WTF?
    Here is the neighborhood they are doing this in:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?li=rwp&q=1306+N+Cedar+ ...

    If they were doing this in a business district, I would be complaining about the people being moralistic prigs sticking their nose in someone else's business. But they aren't. This is they problem.
  • nydwarf, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1It's legal here in Canada: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ...
  • thecatcantalk, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1For *****'s sake, as the Constitution itself explicates, one's legal rights are INALIENABLE; they cannot be "granted" or "taken away". They can be violated, which gives one grounds for a civil case against the person or institution which has violated those rights.

    The Federal and various State governments HAVE NO RIGHTS; they have only specific, limited powers, which are granted to them by the people through the Constitution, which enumerates those powers explicitly, and states further (are you listening, Curious George?) that the federal government has no powers except those specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

    So can we please stop all the happy ***** about "granting" and "taking away" rights? *****, we've all grown so accustomed to hearing mush-brained drunken trailer-park English out of our so-called President, we forget that English is a language of extraordinary and subtle precision.

    You can almost always say exactly what you mean in English, if you take the trouble. Our language is like a wonderfully well-made cello...but we treat it like a wheelbarrow.
  • johnn11238, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5To have an orgy in your home? Yes.
    To run a sex club that advertises and charges admission in a residential neighborhood, um...no.

    The issue is property-use, not moral.

    What was that address again?
  • thecatcantalk, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to go ***** yourself."
  • reddikilowatt, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Can someone please work on getting Texas to go back to being their own screwed up country again?
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3If there isn't, then something is very, very wrong with this thing we call freedom
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.