On 21 Apr 2016 at 16:30, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:

> It can also just as easily be the other way 'round.
>
> Where the 'minority' imposes it's will on the 'majority'.
> ('higher' courts are prone to such behavior)

Thing is, that's the whole *purpose* of things like the Bill of
Rights (and high court decisions regarding rights).

The concept that there are some things the majority is *not* allowed
to do to minorities.

And I have yet to see a complaint about "activist courts" and
"denying the will of the people" that *didn't come down to "they
won't let us do X to people we don't like"

> esp, if the local 'minority' constitutes a 'majority' farther up the line.

That's getting into different territory.

But a classic example of trying to *avoid* that is the Miller
decision regarding obscenity. specifically the "local community
standards" bit.

At some point, that is going to *have* to change given things like
satellite TV and the internet.

It's one thing to say that "ok, your community has a right to say
folks can't set up shop in your community to sell 'obscene' stuff".

It was a bit of a reach to say the the community has the right to say
folks living there can't order said materials from elsewhere.

But the fact that for the last 30 years it's been used to let East
Bumfuck go after people for putting stuff online that's legal where
they are is going to far.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com