4 ms·

That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especi

That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especially if it requires breaking a law.

shkkmo 7y ago
Who said anything about forcing people to comply? I am talking about the constitutionality of certain laws that that make it illegal to comply with an individual's last wishes (when those wishes would not impinge of the freedom of others) The point is that an act that is explicitly authorized in a will should not qualify as abuse of a corpse, not that no laws should apply to the disposal of a corpse. If your will stipulates that your body be used to commit a criminal act, the should be prevented by the normal application of the law. Laws should not impact an individual's right for self determination of the disposal of a their body without a clear set of harms that are being ameliorated (such as in other exceptions to the prohition of prior restraint) I am a bit surprised with the pushback here. Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice. There's a lot of leeway in enforcement of all laws and if you could present evidence that the treatment the corpse received was consistent with a religious practice you'd probably be fine, though there would be levels where the conduct is limitable (eg: public display of the corpse as it decomposes for example). For all the language of "shall make no law" or "shall not infringe" there are many laws that make limitations on freedom of speech, religion, and bear arms. It's hard to imagine any law standing up to a maximal interpretation of freedom of religion for example because a religion can be anything and hold any precepts. Remains treatment laws were actually addressing a need and harm at the time where corpses were being dug up for medical study against the wishes of the deceased and the restrictions work because they're largely in line with the majority of religions especially in the US. It hasn't really been challenged because very few people actually want to do something against the law with their relatives corpses.

That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especially if it requires breaking a law.

shkkmo 7y ago

Who said anything about forcing people to comply? I am talking about the constitutionality of certain laws that that make it illegal to comply with an individual's last wishes (when those wishes would not impinge of the freedom of others) The point is that an act that is explicitly authorized in a will should not qualify as abuse of a corpse, not that no laws should apply to the disposal of a corpse. If your will stipulates that your body be used to commit a criminal act, the should be prevented by the normal application of the law. Laws should not impact an individual's right for self determination of the disposal of a their body without a clear set of harms that are being ameliorated (such as in other exceptions to the prohition of prior restraint) I am a bit surprised with the pushback here. Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice.

rtkwe 7y ago
> Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice. There's a lot of leeway in enforcement of all laws and if you could present evidence that the treatment the corpse received was consistent with a religious practice you'd probably be fine, though there would be levels where the conduct is limitable (eg: public display of the corpse as it decomposes for example). For all the language of "shall make no law" or "shall not infringe" there are many laws that make limitations on freedom of speech, religion, and bear arms. It's hard to imagine any law standing up to a maximal interpretation of freedom of religion for example because a religion can be anything and hold any precepts. Remains treatment laws were actually addressing a need and harm at the time where corpses were being dug up for medical study against the wishes of the deceased and the restrictions work because they're largely in line with the majority of religions especially in the US. It hasn't really been challenged because very few people actually want to do something against the law with their relatives corpses.