On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes: > > > > No, that's not true. "reasonable person" (actually, they say > > > "reasonable man") is a quite well-defined concept in American law. > > > > Is "reasonable man" the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL? > > Um, workplace harrasment cases are not the same as obscenity cases. I > think you are alluding to obscenity rules, which depend not on a > reasonable man test, but on a community standards test. > > The definition of the reasonable man test is the same everywhere; it > is implemented by juries, judges, and appeals courts. Yes, you're right. My bad. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part