3 ms·

>It think refusal case is called "Implied Consent" -- you consented to it already by getting into the car and driving on public roads. If she hadn't wanted it,

>It think refusal case is called "Implied Consent" -- you consented to it already by getting into the car and driving on public roads. If she hadn't wanted it, why did she wear that in public? The very notion of 'implied consent' shows how far our legal system has fallen.

rdtsc 11y ago
Driving is a privilege. People agree to certain rules when they start driving. According to the states this is one of the rules. If you don't want to play, don't drive. And that's exactly what they do. If you refuse, they won't charge you with criminal offense necessarily, but instead take your privilege to drive and impose a civil fine. That is a bit different than rape as far as I see, but I guess you don't see it that way. You are also voluntarily giving up freedoms when you sign up for the military or get a security clearance. You can try to claim free speech for divulging state secrets, but you'll still go to jail, because you signed a contract to that effect.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Driving is a privilege. And yet, at least in the more spread out areas of the US, it is far more a necessity than voting. Why is it a privilege while voting is not? And as for differences, the basics of consent is consistent across where ever that consent is being applied. That the harms of violations of consent may differ does not change that.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    The punishment for implied consent is they take away the privilege. They don't jail you That's a specific loophole. It turns into a civil court thing and DMV thing not a criminal thing. > Why is it a privilege while voting is not? Oh I agree with you. But we'd have to fix that first. It is a privilege because it is not made into law that travel by car on public roads is a universal human right like other rights in the Constitution. As far as the govt. is concerned citizens have the absolute right to ride their horse on public lands. Just like they did in the 1700s. As soon as anyone steps in a car, airplane, train etc, they lose some right and have to abide by certain rules.

rdtsc 11y ago

Driving is a privilege. People agree to certain rules when they start driving. According to the states this is one of the rules. If you don't want to play, don't drive. And that's exactly what they do. If you refuse, they won't charge you with criminal offense necessarily, but instead take your privilege to drive and impose a civil fine. That is a bit different than rape as far as I see, but I guess you don't see it that way. You are also voluntarily giving up freedoms when you sign up for the military or get a security clearance. You can try to claim free speech for divulging state secrets, but you'll still go to jail, because you signed a contract to that effect.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Driving is a privilege. And yet, at least in the more spread out areas of the US, it is far more a necessity than voting. Why is it a privilege while voting is not? And as for differences, the basics of consent is consistent across where ever that consent is being applied. That the harms of violations of consent may differ does not change that.
- rdtsc 11y ago
  The punishment for implied consent is they take away the privilege. They don't jail you That's a specific loophole. It turns into a civil court thing and DMV thing not a criminal thing. > Why is it a privilege while voting is not? Oh I agree with you. But we'd have to fix that first. It is a privilege because it is not made into law that travel by car on public roads is a universal human right like other rights in the Constitution. As far as the govt. is concerned citizens have the absolute right to ride their horse on public lands. Just like they did in the 1700s. As soon as anyone steps in a car, airplane, train etc, they lose some right and have to abide by certain rules.