Slashdot Mirror

In California it's a felony to harass Bigfoot, Sasquatch or other undiscovered subspecies.
http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19...
"Sorry, but if you hadn't bothered that sasquatch we might have a job for you."

I would also advise against putting ice cream into your back pockets or keeping your donkey in a bathtub.

http://www.dumblaws.com/

Good point. Here is a comprehensive list of states with stupid laws.

Regarding Texas, I have the following points:
- The law specifically mentions "attached to windshield" but not "rear view mirror." It also mentions "Obstruction." Accordingly, the law would make for an interesting case for "rear view mirror" mounted devices. Would like to check case law when I have some time.
- The way the law is stated, if "rear view mirror" mounted smartphones are "obstruction" then so is every single rear window sticker, rear view mirror charm, and dashboard bob-head. . . I want to say that ~30% of the cars I see have something like this, so perhaps this is just another dumb Texas law that is almost never enforced.
- If they are actively enforcing this for people who are using apps like Waze, then they are killing people every year by their stupidity, and I feel morally obligated to resist this out-of-date and very stupid law. I hope I do get a ticket so that I can be the first to loudly fight it.

Will the Theranos suit divert resources that are used to enforce important public safety laws, such as:

In Arizona it is illegal to have more than 2 dildos in a house.

8 Photos That Prove Some Laws Should Have Never Been Written
Big Government. Small Brains. Dumb Laws.
10 Arizona "Dumb Laws" That Are Complete Horse S**t

So many you wouldn't believe it. Ever research the stupid laws that remain on many state's books? How about the one in Washington state that says All motor vehicles must be preceded by a man carrying a red flag (daytime) or a red lantern (nighttime) fifty feet in front of said vehicle? Or A law to reduce crime states: “It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town? http://www.dumblaws.com/law/66...

There are so many dumb laws remaining on the books that it is very likely that you violate many of them completely unaware.

.

I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is http://www.dumblaws.com/ and you should always try to break at least one of those laws in every state that you go through.

My local favorite is that men of a certain age, in Maine, must carry a shotgun to church on Sunday in case the Native Americans attack. There was a blue law (which is what many of these laws are) that was in Portland, ME; If you saw two or more Native Americans on horseback then you could shoot them. I figured I would go down to the Memorial Day parade and bring a shotgun. However, it was a post-9/11 world and I figured that my bringing a shotgun would almost certainly result in my being shot - I am a little brown so it seemed doubly likely. The law no longer appears on the Dumb Laws site (linked above) so I surmise that it has been removed.

PA has a State law that is easy enough to break - I never witnessed anybody comply with the law in Amish or Mennonite areas. This is a quote from the site, I have not read the law, itself, to check the verbiage:

Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.

So, even aside from legitimate laws like the PATRIOT ACT, there are plenty of stupid ideas. The important thing to remember, or one of the important things to remember - I suppose, is that these laws were often created retroactively because someone was being that stupid which is why there are laws that do things like disallow alligators being leashed to fire hydrants.

Finally, NY has some interesting laws. Anonymous (the so-called hactivist group) demonstrations might be illegal as congregating with folks wearing masks is illegal. The text and reasoning is here: http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19... The remainder of NY's listed dumb laws are here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/u... - If you have not visited the site before then you may find it a bit of a time-waster. I consider breaking many of these laws to be patriotic. I strongly recommend reviewing these laws before (or during) any road trips.

I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is http://www.dumblaws.com/ and you should always try to break at least one of those laws in every state that you go through.

My local favorite is that men of a certain age, in Maine, must carry a shotgun to church on Sunday in case the Native Americans attack. There was a blue law (which is what many of these laws are) that was in Portland, ME; If you saw two or more Native Americans on horseback then you could shoot them. I figured I would go down to the Memorial Day parade and bring a shotgun. However, it was a post-9/11 world and I figured that my bringing a shotgun would almost certainly result in my being shot - I am a little brown so it seemed doubly likely. The law no longer appears on the Dumb Laws site (linked above) so I surmise that it has been removed.

PA has a State law that is easy enough to break - I never witnessed anybody comply with the law in Amish or Mennonite areas. This is a quote from the site, I have not read the law, itself, to check the verbiage:

Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.

So, even aside from legitimate laws like the PATRIOT ACT, there are plenty of stupid ideas. The important thing to remember, or one of the important things to remember - I suppose, is that these laws were often created retroactively because someone was being that stupid which is why there are laws that do things like disallow alligators being leashed to fire hydrants.

Finally, NY has some interesting laws. Anonymous (the so-called hactivist group) demonstrations might be illegal as congregating with folks wearing masks is illegal. The text and reasoning is here: http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19... The remainder of NY's listed dumb laws are here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/u... - If you have not visited the site before then you may find it a bit of a time-waster. I consider breaking many of these laws to be patriotic. I strongly recommend reviewing these laws before (or during) any road trips.

I drove/rode around the country at complete random (as much as is humanly possible, at any rate) the vast majority of the time. We would cross a state line and get off the nearest exit. Our spartan itinerary meant that we could do what we wanted for however long we wanted with regards to our lack of destination. Sometimes we would camp in a hotel for days and just explore an area that looked interesting. (For instance, Florida is a bit like a car wreck - you have to stare.) Anyhow, the appropriate site is http://www.dumblaws.com/ and you should always try to break at least one of those laws in every state that you go through.

My local favorite is that men of a certain age, in Maine, must carry a shotgun to church on Sunday in case the Native Americans attack. There was a blue law (which is what many of these laws are) that was in Portland, ME; If you saw two or more Native Americans on horseback then you could shoot them. I figured I would go down to the Memorial Day parade and bring a shotgun. However, it was a post-9/11 world and I figured that my bringing a shotgun would almost certainly result in my being shot - I am a little brown so it seemed doubly likely. The law no longer appears on the Dumb Laws site (linked above) so I surmise that it has been removed.

PA has a State law that is easy enough to break - I never witnessed anybody comply with the law in Amish or Mennonite areas. This is a quote from the site, I have not read the law, itself, to check the verbiage:

Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass.

So, even aside from legitimate laws like the PATRIOT ACT, there are plenty of stupid ideas. The important thing to remember, or one of the important things to remember - I suppose, is that these laws were often created retroactively because someone was being that stupid which is why there are laws that do things like disallow alligators being leashed to fire hydrants.

Finally, NY has some interesting laws. Anonymous (the so-called hactivist group) demonstrations might be illegal as congregating with folks wearing masks is illegal. The text and reasoning is here: http://www.dumblaws.com/law/19... The remainder of NY's listed dumb laws are here: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/u... - If you have not visited the site before then you may find it a bit of a time-waster. I consider breaking many of these laws to be patriotic. I strongly recommend reviewing these laws before (or during) any road trips.

That's hyperbole. 5 dildos is fine. More than 6, however ...

Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields. While having sex, you must stay in the missionary position and have the shades pulled. If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married. Persons in possession of illegal substances must pay taxes on them. A three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold. Organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume. Bingo games may not last over 5 hours unless it is held at a fair. Serving alcohol at a bingo game is not allowed. All from North Carolina http://www.dumblaws.com/

I've seen many of those 'stupid laws still on the books'. (I see http://www.dumblaws.com/ exists, amusing. "A woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission.") Why do those even still exist?

It seems like all laws need some time limit, if no one has been successfully tried for something illegal for X number of years the law becomes void.

I'm not sure about your #3 of Loser pays. That may stop someone bringing a case against a GM or other mega corp if they spend millions on lawyers. I see the intent but it could really shaft the little guy.

Is there any website that actually shows the law including all revisions? Instead of the various further laws that are worded like "change part 2, subsection A, paragraph 3 from 'shall' to 'will'" it'd be nice if any changes showed the actual entire new wording

No, they will be too busy wondering how she ended up in the state pen for violation of federal law.

The combination of two factors:

1. Eric Holder has "broad discretion" in prosecuting federal crimes.

2. There are so many unexpected laws (Mississippi's silly ones include this list), that a committed prosecutor can always find something to convict you of.

Some things don't need regular repeal - some laws are just that good. Like laws against murder.

Right, and copyright -- because everyone agrees that these laws are important, right?

I like the idea of all laws having automatic sunsets - maybe with max of 10 or 20 years out. It's an automatic opportunity to review the legislation again when it comes for renewal. Does it mean that all laws will be re-analyzed in depth? No, of course not - most of the core legal framework would just be renewed without debate in giant, omnibus-like bills.

But it could trigger discussions about topics that might have changed in the last couple of decades - things like copyright, patents, healthcare, taxation, immigration, gun laws -- topics that have had material change and should be re-evaluated.

And it helps prevent old, dumb laws from sitting on the books, like these (most of these happen to be state laws, but the point stands):
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.
A man may not seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her.

(etc)

Some things don't need regular repeal - some laws are just that good. Like laws against murder.

Right, and copyright -- because everyone agrees that these laws are important, right?

I like the idea of all laws having automatic sunsets - maybe with max of 10 or 20 years out. It's an automatic opportunity to review the legislation again when it comes for renewal. Does it mean that all laws will be re-analyzed in depth? No, of course not - most of the core legal framework would just be renewed without debate in giant, omnibus-like bills.

But it could trigger discussions about topics that might have changed in the last couple of decades - things like copyright, patents, healthcare, taxation, immigration, gun laws -- topics that have had material change and should be re-evaluated.

And it helps prevent old, dumb laws from sitting on the books, like these (most of these happen to be state laws, but the point stands):
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.
A man may not seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her.

(etc)

Some things don't need regular repeal - some laws are just that good. Like laws against murder.

Right, and copyright -- because everyone agrees that these laws are important, right?

I like the idea of all laws having automatic sunsets - maybe with max of 10 or 20 years out. It's an automatic opportunity to review the legislation again when it comes for renewal. Does it mean that all laws will be re-analyzed in depth? No, of course not - most of the core legal framework would just be renewed without debate in giant, omnibus-like bills.

But it could trigger discussions about topics that might have changed in the last couple of decades - things like copyright, patents, healthcare, taxation, immigration, gun laws -- topics that have had material change and should be re-evaluated.

And it helps prevent old, dumb laws from sitting on the books, like these (most of these happen to be state laws, but the point stands):
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.
A man may not seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her.

(etc)

You sure are lonely and blue, following this link you will make it through : http://dumblaws.com/ Make sure to check you local laws mate, unless you want to be some cop bate.

I have a strong feeling you have just watched How I met your Mother..

You sure are lonely and blue, following this link you will make it through : http://dumblaws.com/

Make sure to check you local laws mate, unless you want to be some cop bate.

> math isn't supposed to be patentable.

That's a common misconception, started and encouraged by people with a particular agenda. The rule in the US is:

...snip stupid, broken US rulings...

You're making two grave errors here.

First, people you confuse the claim that math isn't supposed to be patentable with the claim that math isn't patentable. You're mixing up the status quo with how the world should be. It's circular reasoning, like saying that the most stupid laws are alright, because they are laws.

Second, you either misunderstand or ignore the formal theory behind the claim that software should not be patentable, because it is math. Every computer program corresponds to a mathematical proof. Some programs might be less interesting than others, but all of them are math, and patent applicants have already in the past found and used loopholes to patent basic mathematical principles. If actual mathematicians working in math departments at universities would take the current law seriously - thank God they don't! - they could patent nearly every aspect of future mathematics and potential future software methodology just by packaging it in a smart way as some "method for doing blablabla". Fortunately most of them have better things to do. Let's hope it stays that way.

And these two points do not even address the real problem yet, namely that programming is like playing with Lego bricks and it's already nowadays impossible to write any program whatsoever that is not already patent encumbered.

Ok, you are right. There are laws, and they must be followed at all cost. Now, pick your state here, select from the list the one you broke up today, and go to jail by yourself now. I.e. if you live in new york, and if you wore slippers after 10pm, then you broke the law. See? Is easy to break dumb, malicious, tricky or just unfair laws in your everyday life, realizing it or not. Slavery or english monarchy in US was law, where the ones fighting against them traitors?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/weird/the-worlds-strangest-laws/story-e6frev20-1111114208087

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/australia

http://www.weekendnotes.com/the-3-best-illegal-things-to-do-in-melbourne/

If you're not a criminal, or an "unwanted race" under some future tyranny state, what does it matter that the government tracks your phone?

That's rather shortsighted. Simply because you aren't oppressed right now doesn't mean you won't be later on. Better to stop such Orwellian policies before you need them removed than after...not to mention the ethics of allowing others to be oppressed and not giving a rip because it isn't you.

And let's face it, "criminal" is a term that is defined by the government. I'm sure everyone here on /. has seen stories where "${Ridiculous_Action} is illegal in the state of..." For example, "Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face up to five years in jail," in Auburn, Alabama. How many guys do you think are "criminals" according to THAT law? Yet have they actually done anything wrong (assuming that it was consensual and both parties were over the age of consent)? Okay, so what...you've got a city full of guys who haven't actually done anything wrong, but are technically guilty of violating an absurd law in some obscure town in the south. Big deal, right? <tinfoilhat status="on">But suppose one of these guys is threatening the establishment...or is suspected of doing something wrong, even though the PD don't have enough evidence to get a warrant...or...or...or. Now, they have a technical violation of the law that can be used to arrest or harass him, which can have devastating effects, even if he is later found to be innocent. </tinfoilhat> Okay, that's a hypothetical situation that really dives into conspiracy-theorist territory, but I seem to remember a popular Ayn Rand quote warning about this.

The offence stems from drawing attention to something that should be obvious and well-known to a person of his profession. For example, in Indiana, it is (technically) illegal for a server to bring alcohol into a restaurant. This sounds somewhat less absurd when you know that the full text of the law is supposed to be about patrons, but doesn't actually specify who is prohibited from doing so. If you were operating a restaurant in Indiana, this is something you would obviously have to know. McAllister and his audience should both be versed in the story that LA had banned the master/slave terminology, and it's deeply disappointing that he took the chance to exploit it for a chance to rib Microsoft instead of doing the applicable research—or at least being more cautious about it.

Sincerely,

Writing To An Imaginary Newspaper Advice Column

It's not any meaningful restriction.

Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.

For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.

Financial and LEGAL reasons.
That is why kids 11 and younger must bring their parents to sign the papers, and not a cash deposit.

I'm just curious, how exactly would they prove this? If I pay $20 to somebody for helping me move my furniture, wtf would Louisiana do? Break into my house (rule break 1), and charge me for paying cash to someone... with what? What if I am not obligated to pay my friend (which I'm not), but it still becomes a paid service, get my point?

This one should be getting added to...
http://www.dumblaws.com/

pretty soon.

Way to try and become a police state, thankfully it's just a state rather than federal. A federal law like this would spiral the world economy out of control and probably dethrone our government? This discussion would be better if we imagined this as a federal law, Louisiana doesn't matter in the least bit on a federal scale. Also, how did the people there pass this? Are they fuckin serious?

What about MY Pride? MY Respect?

I thought Utah had a great year. Our wacky legislature tried their best, but not one of our efforts made the cut: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states

Well, I guess all we can do is cut educational funding some more and wait till next year.

Miles

Perhaps I would be less skeptical if you could come up with an example of a law that I break without knowing about it that could land me in prison.

We've had hundreds of years to pile on laws/regulations/statutes. You're 100% certain you've never violated one of them?

You never see those "dumb laws" news stories that float around occasionally?
The list at that website is just state laws, it doesn't include federal, town, county, coast guard, customs, etc, etc.

You're subject to thousands (millions?) of "laws" at any given moment, and more once you step/drive off your property, then many more when you cross state/country lines.

If they started trying to imprison people for "flicking boogers in public" there would be an outcry.

Do you want to be the martyr that gets harassed/thrown in jail/fined, and a criminal record?
Do you want to do that for every crazy law out there?

Wow! You really seem to think that anyone the US wants in Sweden, they just grab! And if the same person is in the UK they are immune. On what grounds do you make this claim? It would be interesting to know if I can live safely here in Sweden or if I should cower in my basement. It seems you are a bit over confident in your own government reach and power.

Seriously, after the extradiction of two Egyptian nationals which rendered extreme publicity and outcry from different political parties here in Sweden, I doubt that they could do anything like that without commiting political suicide at the same time. Lately there have been critizicm about the mere rumor that CIA prison transports might be landing at Swedish airports to refuel. I think USA would have a much easier time to make a deal with its NATO partners in a situation like this.

Try to think of it, why did he come to Sweden in the first place? After that, start criticizing the Swedish legal system. It might not be perfect, but it is definitely not as flawed as you claim. And before you start to throw stuff around, look into the laws in your on state.

...at least they don't spend their time passing stupid crap like this into law.

Oh yeah?

Highlights:
Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
Incestuous marriages are legal.
Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.

Well, OK, I sort of agree with that last one.

• It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.
• It is illegal to smoke cigarettes within 15 feet of a public place unless you have a Class 12 liqueur license in Mesa
• An ordinance prohibits the wearing of suspenders in Nogales.
• Women may not wear pants in Tucson.
• If you know you're sick and yet you enter Arizona anyway, wouldn't that technically be a violation of subsection A, paragraph 2 of this statute? Better not sneeze if you look "touristy".
• Littering (including spitting on the ground, for example, according to this.)

"Well to be fair, I think that's already illegal."

In Massachusetts the following things are also illegal: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts

It is illegal to give beer to hospital patients.

Candy may not contain more than 1% of alcohol.

Shooting ranges may not set up targets that resemble human beings.

At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.

Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and securely locked.

An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.

Taxi drivers are prohibited from making love in the front seat of their taxi during their shifts.

All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.

Hunting on Sundays is prohibited.

It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.

A woman can not be on top in sexual activities.

No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

Tattooing and body piercing is illegal. (Repealed in 2000)

Children may smoke, but they may not purchase cigarettes.

Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.

Quakers and witches are banned.

Bullets may not be used as currency.

Massachusetts liquor stores can only open on Sundays if they are in Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Middlesex or Worcester counties and are within 10 miles of the Vermont or New Hampshire borders.

Alcoholic drink specials are illegal.

Public boxing matches are outlawed.

I dunno... I'd be willing to wager that the majority of these laws were made as a direct result of an actual incident.

I'm sure it's illegal somewhere. There's plenty of crazy shit all over America. Some gems from my home state of New Jersey:

• It is against the law for a man to knit during the fishing season.
• It is against the law to “frown” at a police officer.
• You cannot pump your own gas.

Source: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-jersey

Many countries have weird laws, that doesn't mean they are still executed. We call it 'dead law'. Of course the US doesn't have that, they have to still fear laws from the 19th century and do commit 3 felonies every day ;-)

I couldn't find any exceptions to the Massachusetts law, but I did find a blog post that described another case like it. A man operating a video camera at a political protest in 2006 was ordered by the police to stop recording, but he simply hid the camera in his coat and continued to record. He was arrested, ordered to pay a $500 fine, and sentenced to six months probation.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/massachusetts-wiretapping-law-strikes-again

So even though there's no exception, I would guess that the man described in the original article will receive a similar sentence. The post I linked to above also mentions a case in which a woman posted a video on the Internet that was obtained in a similar manner. The police department ordered her to take it down or face prosecution; she resisted, citing the first amendment, and the court ruled in her favor, since she did not actually make the video that she was posting. So creating the recording is a crime, but, assuming you didn't create it, you can share it with whomever you want.

I also discovered that the defense counsel for Joel Tennenbaum, who was sued by the RIAA and whose case has appeared on Slashdot before, used the wiretapping law as part of their defense:

http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/07/print/005584.html

Oh, and this website that purports to list dumb laws that have been passed in the US and around the world. I don't know how accurate it is, but it's good for a laugh.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts

Given the complexity and spread of the current legislation, everyone one of us commits a crime, at least a couple a times a week.

I guess we should focus on building more jails?

http://www.dumblaws.com/

We could get rid of a large percentage of laws and still be a civil society.

You're crazy! If we allow dominoes to be played on a Sunday, we might as well legalize murder!

I've never been to the UK but over the years I've read no small number of stories coming from across the pond that just leave me shaking my head: the ever-present cameras, the citizen databases, the monitoring and surveillance, etc. How are the good folks in the UK not in the streets about all this? Maybe I'm wrong -- in fact I hope that I am -- but the UK seems to be barreling down the road to Big Brother. To see a Western nation going down this path truly disturbs me.

I have agree with you.

Its starting to sound like Singapore.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/singapore

Not in Oregon.

Well... Oregon law-givers also found it prudent to legislate and penalize carrying a child on an external part of the vehicle, such as hood, fender or a running board.

www.dumblaws.com/law/1416
811.205 Carrying minor on external part of vehicle;
penalty

Full text of the Law
811.205 Carrying child on external part of vehicle; penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of carrying a child on an external part of a motor vehicle if the person carries any child upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any motor vehicle that is upon a highway.

(2) The offense described in this section, carrying a child on an external part of a motor vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation.

[1983 c.338 604; 1995 c.383 53]

Considering the fact it can be illegal to carry a lobster smaller than a certain size is illegal. Anything is considered illegal. So why did you post this as anonymous coward? What are YOU afraid of?

It's a good thing our finance industry has stayed so heavily regul.. oh. wait.

It's most of the deregulation effects (things like repealing Glass-Steagal and entering into "free trade" with GATT/NAFTA/WTO from the Carter age onwards) that caused our problems there, actually. Just like how Radio has been effectively fucked to smithereens with the removal of mass-market ownership limits; we dropped from having over 5,000 radio station owners, most of who were comfortably making a profit (if not insanely rich), and converted to where 99% of the radio market is owned by 5 companies all of which are claiming to be "on the edge of bankruptcy" and dropping all the local shows and local commentary to push prerecorded crap and "the same rotation of songs every hour" formats instead... and then wonder why people aren't listening anymore.

It's a good thing regulations protected the people who got screwed by Enr... oh wait.

Most of Enron's crimes were already on the books; the "responsive" stuff (Sarbanes-Oxley) was really fluff to tell people "look, we responded, see we passed a law" while being utterly fucking redundant. The problem was enforcement, not the regulations and laws themselves.

It's a good thing regulations protected the town that the movie Erin Brockovicth was based on.. oh, wait.

You're going by a movie? Again, the problem was that enforcement didn't happen, not that the laws and regulations themselves weren't right.

You, sir, got lucky, and think that because things went a certain way for you, they go that way for everyone. They don't. The world is a larger sample set than the town you lived in.

You, sir, need to realize something very basic: if we just enforced the laws we already have on the books properly, we'd solve so many problems it'd be unbelievable. The problem today is that 99% or more of the laws exist on the books without ever seeing enforcement, and politicians convince the sheeple that "passing a law" means solving the problem, even if the law they just passed is already redundant to 4-5 other fucking laws already on the books that aren't being enforced either.

If we cleaned up the law books, consolidated all the redundant crap, cleaned up/repealed the really stupid or badly worded ones and then simply enforced what we have properly, we'd be a lot better off.

Is it time for Australia to just fall off this planet entirely? You can say that it's just the government and the judges, but who elected that government who put in those judges in the first place?

How about the US setting the example and leading the way?
Its not like there are any stupid laws, or jurists, in the US!!
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states
.

Don't forget Illinois. It's already illegal to speak English there.

As you suggest, the law in question is stupid, as are thousands of other laws. But if the officer were acting professionally, he wouldn't make an arrest for any of these laws. Part of being a professional police officer is exercising proper discretion as to when to make an arrest.

Contrary to your statement, officers are generally not obligated to enforce any particular law. If they were obligated to enforce every infraction of every law they ever witnessed, their entire day would consist of arresting everyone violating the speed limit directly in front of the police station, they'd never make it three blocks down the street, and many more important laws would be broken on streets with no police station.

Police officers are expected to use intelligent discretion to enforce the laws which will have the greatest impact in improving the quality of life of the community. That means some prioritization is necessary. Arresting murderers and rapists is an excellent use of police resources, and is quite easy to justify. Arresting jaywalkers and people who litter on the sidewalk is a poor use of police resources, and is harder to justify. Each arrest takes time, effort, and money which could be better used elsewhere in the community. Police officers' time is particularly valuable because just by walking or driving down a street, they can deter crime! A key question for police priorities could be, "is what I'm doing more or less productive than simply cruising down the street?" As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have an interest in police using their time wisely. An officer arresting someone for videotaping a publicly-accessible event was clearly not using his publicly-funded time wisely, just as setting up a strict speed trap in front of the police station is also not a wise use of resources.

Furthermore, I speculate that this officer was probably not aware that the wiretapping law could be used in this case. I wouldn't expect a traffic cop to be well-versed in wiretapping laws. He arrested the guy with the camera, then, according to the original article, "The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney." Chances are he was embarrassed about having lost his temper ("He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal") so he arrested the guy, probably for "disorderly conduct" or some other catch-all, then went to the DA's office to see if there was anything better to charge him with. Maybe the guy's pal was being a jerk and deserved to be yelled at. But if it was justified, the cop had nothing to hide, and in either case he had no legitimate reason to go after the guy with the camera.

For the record, I got an A in civics class... I'm a nerd, after all!

...with century-old laws like "a man must run in front of a car that's not dragged by horses, waving a flag or lamp". Put them on Dumb Laws.

It would be fitting. They, too, were created to protect an obsolete, outdated business model.

Starting at 8 a.m. last Thursday, federal Border Patrol agents blocked the highway outside town. For four hours, every car, truck and bus driving south on Highway 101 was pulled off the road and all passengers questioned.

How is this even remotely legal? (e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois)

Or did they count on the kind of people they were looking for not knowing how to say "Do you have a warrant?"?

Or maybe the officers thought there was probable cause that every car driving through Forks (!) had criminals in it?

Washington already has a law which says "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town". So it's not like they wouldn't have heard about things well in advance, anyway.

You may not drive barefooted.
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.
It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.
You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.
Masks may not be worn in public.
Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men.

"since it is theoretically just as easy to repeal a law as to enact a new one that goes further in the same direction"

This is theoretically correct. 'In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not'

In the end, however, I was not talking about how easy or hard it is to repeal restrictive laws. In practice that does not matter. What matters is how likely is it that the restrictive law gets repealed vs. a more restrictive law passed. Simply considering the number of laws on the books, it is clear that passing new laws is more likely than repealing old ones. Here is some evidence to back that up. And those are just the funny ones.

I think that the largest trouble with the slippery slope argument is that the slope is usually not slippery, or much of a slope, as you said. However, every so often some power-hungry nut-job gets into power, and then the slope is usually steep and slick.

It *is* a good device to communicate an idea, and it may even turn out to be correct, but it has no more place in classical logic than anecdotal evidence or appeal to emotion.

Now I think we are getting close to the heart of our differences. You seem to care more that your logic is correct than that your conclusions are correct. I am the opposite. Even an idiot is occasionally correct, even if by nothing more than sheer dumb luck, and almost always in spite of correct logic, not because of it. With that understanding I can partly agree with you. The 'slippery slope' is not a very logically sound argument. This fact does not however, have all that much to do with whether it is correct.

"There should be a law that you can't put a law on the books with no intention of enforcing it."

No way! Then the great state of Washington could have these laws on the books:

It is illegal to attach a vending machine to a utility pole without prior consent from the utility company.

No person may walk about in public if he or she has the common cold.

Destroying a beer cask or bottle of another is illegal.

It is illegal to entice girls away from the Maple Lane School for girls.

X-rays may not be used to fit shoes.

All lollipops are banned.

A law to reduce crime states: "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town.

It is illegal to paint polka dots on the American flag.

People may not buy a mattress on Sunday.All motor vehicles must be preceded by a man carrying a red flag (daytime) or a red lantern (nighttime) fifty feet in front of said vehicle.

It is illegal to pretend that one's parents are rich.

You are not allowed to breastfeed in public. (this is a good law though)

One may not spit on a bus.

When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed.You cannot buy meat of any kind on Sunday.

http://dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/washington/

Not that I disagree they have had and still have some questionable practices, but the whole "evil" thing has always bothered me a bit especially when used as you are using it.

Have you or your mother, or your father, etc, etc ever recieved a speeding ticket? If so, you are a criminal and are evil! In todays society (really in any society) there are SOOOO many stupid laws I'd all but promise every single person over the age of 30 in this country has broken a law. Are they all evil?

The other point is about how "evil" it is to be a monopolist. Actually (correct me if I'm wrong here), MS wasn't convicted of being a monopolist. They were found to hold a monopoly and abusing that monopoly in violation of anti-trust laws. Nothing inherantly illegal about being a monoply. Anyway, the point is what they were convicted of doing is basically identical to at least an awful lot of other companies are doing (if not almost all). The thing is, its prefectly OK to do these things as long as you aren't a monopoly, but illegal if you are. This gets a bit messy because they certainly weren't always a monoply, so basically thier (and many other companies) standard procedures were just fine one day, but illegal the next day because someone decided they were offically a monopoly as of that date. Not that I condone all thier behaviour, but unless the government sent them a letter letting them know that they were now considered a monoply how do they know when its OK to continue those practices and when its not?

I'm sure this won't be well recieved here, but I just don't see MS as doing "evil" things. I think that should be reserved for the Enrons and WorldComs of the world. MS is simply not being very nice to competitors sometimes.... maybe a bit naughty but on my radar it least it doesn't raise to the level of "evil".

Not enforcing them is a damned good way to begin to correct them.

Unless we're going to dutifully throw people in the clink for things like these:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states

It seems people assume that "The Law" only deals with things like murder. I imagine you'd be quite annoyed if you lived in Tennessee and had eight daughters, all of whom were carted off to jail for prostitution, you sent to prison for several years for running a brothel all the while the "jury of your peers" full well knowing they're your danged daughters, but aw shucks, Hos, the law here done say eight womenfolk under one roofs' a whore-house. Well, off they go and you with 'em! But, go ahead and write your rep from your cell while your neighbors all kvetch about "I knew he's alright, but you know the law's the law and that's all there is too it, yup."

Mercifully, there are some people who aren't quite that vacant.