society. Obscenity laws are a prime example of a harm that isn’t technically tangible. Watching pornography may not have an immediate financial or physical harm but society considers it harmful enough to regulate it. This is seen with hate crimes as well. These crimes are not always physical but are still morally wrong and should be outlawed by the government. These examples demonstrate the notion that a harm doesn’t always have to be tangible to be considered proper grounds for policing.
Overall I would disagree with eliminated public morality in regards to privacy and free speech jurisprudence. Doing away with public morality as a legitimate police power is not only impossible but unwise. With morality being the basis of all law, the necessity for the law to conform with the publics moral compass is essential. It is this conformity that gives laws validity. Morality is a fluid concept that changes with time so therefore doesn’t need to be objective. Its fluidity allows for it to adjust with changing moral environment of society. The concern about tyranny of the majority is refuted by the basic notion that a democratic society needs the morality of the majority to function. It cannot always please everyone but should please as many people as possible. The Bill of Rights is instituted to protect those fundamental rights of the minority. The final concept of tangibility is completely subjective and cannot be considered a justified argument. Moral harm can be just as important as tangible harms and therefore needs to be protected by the government. Overall, the attempt of separating public morality from law is improbable and opposes the fundamental idea of law.

I pledge my honor I have not violated the honor code on this examination.