NODE 5187dfb1Re: [Off-Topic] "Curfews"
"Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:00:15 +0800
On 1 Jun 96 at 21:59, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> I'm afraid that some courts have explicitly held that "the child does not
> have a right to liberty but only a right to custody." That is old law,
> however. Kids have lost many rights recently too including gun rights, etc.
....which dates back to laws that said women and children were mens'
possessions. Very archaic.
A case from several years ago comes to mind. Apparently a federal(?)
court ruled that a 16-yr-old girl's parents were in the legal right
to burn her krshna books and ban her from practicing it. [There was a
protest in downtown SF sometime in 1989 or '90 about this.]
---
No-frills sig.
Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help"
Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (root@magneto)
AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.
NODE 84250d11Re: [Off-Topic] "Curfews"
Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:05:12 +0800
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Deranged Mutant wrote:
> ....which dates back to laws that said women and children were
> mens' possessions. Very archaic.
I've heard this claim for years. While it may be true, I don't
recall anything in my legal training that would support it with
respect to Anglo-American jurisprudence. Can anyone provide a
citation (an original source, please, not some radical feminist
revisionist writings) that sheds light on this curious belief?
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~