Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!porges From: porges@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Re: Why Smoke? - (nf) Message-ID: <1528@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Jun-84 06:36:05 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.1528 Posted: Sun Jun 17 06:36:05 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 02:31:42 EDT Lines: 37 #R:tellab1:-25100:inmet:6400113:000:1423 inmet!porges Jun 16 13:40:00 1984 I was also shocked by the idea to extend the child-abuse laws to cover parents smoking around their children. (I am not a smoker, by the way.) A previous correspondent brought up the enforcability problems, but that's not what I wanted to address. I am worried about a minor trend towards solving problems by changing definitions. 1) Parents smoking around children? Let's call that "child abuse." Sure they aren't hitting their children at all, but it's bad for them, so let's just expand that legal definition... 2) People call up your computer and mess things up? Let's call that "breaking and entering." Sure they aren't actually breaking anything physical or entering anything, but it's like that in a metaphorical way, so what the hey. (Not that I'm against some sort of laws against it, but you see my point.) 3) This one not from the net: Offended by hard-core pornography? Let's call that "denial of civil rights" -- you know, my First Amendment right of freedom from others' offensive speech. No problem. My favorite Abraham Lincoln story: He posed the following question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four...calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. I guess this has been a flame. Sorry. Anyone for net.legal? -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges