Australian authorities have released the goatse guy, who was in their custody after an incident involving a passing police car, a jelly doughnut, and a koala bear.
Re:In other news...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A Koala is not a bear.
Fuck the draft
by
MacAndrew
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Now that I have your attention...
Free speech cheerleaders that Americans are, I'm pretty sure this bare argument would get skewered in court, at least on public indecency grounds. Certainly you have the right to give a cop the finger, though I really really recommend you don't.
There was a classic SC case (Cohen) during the Vietnam War a man was observed in a couthouse corridor wearing a jacket emblazoned "Fuck the draft" on the back. He went into a courtroom, first taking the jacket off, and was arrested.
His conviction was overturned because the Court felt he had not crossed the line between his right of expression and the court's need for decorum (you couldn't break into song during a trial, for example, unless maybe you were a defendant pleading insanity:).
So there is a time, manner, place for different kinds of expression, even uncivil ones. I'm just not picturing the place for expressive mooning... besides a nude beach. I remember a football coach at my high school getting canned for mooning a female math teacher, but that was private school -- no First Amendment.
Well, this is more of an opinion than fact, but a few states, including my own have declared that mooning is not considered indecent exposure. Some judge makes this simple descision only to have it reversed by someone in a higher court who has religiously backed 'morals'. Many rulings get overturned based on one persons FUNDamentalism. Another example; most of the people in my state want a lottery. The religious right doesn't, saying it's a sin. And the last thing we want is someone sinning against, uh, themselves. Of course this is just me bitching about the fundies again. Sorry for wasting your time.
-- Someone hates these cans.
Re:Fuck the draft
by
MacAndrew
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I notice you omit which state.:)
Personally I hope not to see anyone's butt in a nonconsensual situation. But (heh) it's nice to know we have that freedom.
I suppose mooning would be illegal in a situation where it might incite immediate violence. Just a word to the wise.
Re:Fuck the draft
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The funny thing is, the fundies are usually fine with Church Bingo.
Remember kids, gambling is only okay if it's done in the temple!
Try telling that to a Southern Baptitst. FYI MacAndrew, I'm in North Carolina.
-- Someone hates these cans.
Re:Fuck the draft
by
Caid+Raspa
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
(you couldn't break into song during a trial, for example, unless maybe you were a defendant pleading insanity:)
Maybe this is a bit offtopic, but I have heard of a few cases of singing defendants (surprisingly, in a 'fuck the draft' case). Here in Finland inciting someone to break the law is a crime. We also have obligatory military service. If you have a religious/political/ethical non-violent views, you are exempted and allowed to serve 'civil service'. (Which takes 13 months, the most common period of armed service is 6 months)
In the old days, your non-violent views were evaluated by a commitee (A priest, an army officer and a 'layman'), often asking questions like 'What would you do if the Martians invade Earth?'. If they decided your case was not strong enough, you were sent to the army. Refusing to serve in army after a negative committee decision was crime.
The committee system was revoked by ridiculing the law. People made petitions asking those, who got a negative decision, to refuse armed service. After this, they reported themselves to the police. Lists collecting signatures were circulated.
Several thousand people made it to the court. A few poets and singers presented their cases to the court as songs and poems. People set up a contest of 'who gets the longest prison sentence'.
Finally, the president got fed up, and made a general amnesty of all the people involved. The committee system was revoked, and now your concience is tested by 'mark this box if religious, that if ethical'
Interesting. Of course Finland hasn't been invaded for a while, or gone to war, the latter to its credit. Here in the States we're apparently to go to war every ten years or so -- I missed that in the rule book, oops.
The draft in the U.S. was suspended in the 70's after the Vietnam debacle. Draft registration was revived by President Carter, but we still have an all-volunteer army/navy/etc., making the decision whether to go to war rather different.
Online?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why is this under "Your Rights Online"? Shouldn't this be under "It's funny. Laugh"?
Well, us here in the States
by
hitzroth
·
· Score: 4, Funny
have the right to bear arms...
-- In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them. --VonNeumann
Re:Well, us here in the States
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Are you sure that's not the right to *bare* arms?
(Meanwhile, millions of people groan, while tens of history professors chuckle madly.)
This is the fish's way of telling you that it's ready to be eaten. Put the fish (still alive, important) in a large kettle filled with hot oil. Let the fish fry for about 3 hours. Serve with rice..
-- *You are not allowed to read this*
Ummm did you mean..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The right to bare arms? Just wondering...
Uhm, no you don't.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The constitution doesn't speak about any right to bear arms. It only says that the government may own arms and that private ownership of arms could be outlawed. A ban on the private ownership of all guns would not only be sensible, but 100% constitutional.
Sort of, but the second amendment does give the right to the citizens and the states to bear arms. A ban would be sensible but it would also be unconstitutional because the second ammendment doesn't limit the right to just the states.
Has anybody heard the term "larrikin moon" (used in the article) before? This is a new one for me, and Google came up empty.
Re:Strange term
by
catslaugh
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Hitting the Google glossary
yielded a New Zild Glossary which defines a "larrikin" as an "unruly person", a term which originated in 19th century Melbourne.
Re:Strange term
by
os2fan
·
· Score: 3, Informative
These are australian terms, hon.
While Larrikin is usually glossed as an unruly person, over here it carries aslo the sort of connetations of the innocent mischief young adults get up to. Something like a "hood", I suppose. A lot of our words do not translate to american, since ours carry shades of meaning not present in the American.
Moon (v intrans) means to show the exposed backside, often in a reverse bow. It sort of looks like the moon, if the pants are dropped to mid thigh. Don't forget, we see the moon right-way up, not upside down as you do in the Northern hemisphere.
"larrikin moon" then translates to a moon as a harmless mischief. Something about three orders up to giving what the americans use the "finger".
-- OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Re:Strange term
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah but moon is a 'merkin term.
When I was a youngster larrikin, the expression was "chucking a browneye", not "moon".
I never hung around with the crowd that did this sort of thing:)
Maybe they don't see the moon that far north, so I would not be supprised.
-- OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Re:Strange term
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, the term "moon" is an Americanism - the term used here in Oz is "brown-eye" I guess this article has been internationalised......
A considered response
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"Magistrate Sheryl Cornack adjourned the case until December 13 to allow time for the federal and state attorneys-general to consider a response."
Does this mean the attorneys-general are preparing to present their rebuttal?
Memo from Corporate CEO on Dress Code & Moonin
by
COredneck
·
· Score: 1
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1969
To: All Employees
Subject: Mooning and our Corporate Dress Code
As your CEO, it has come to my attention that many people are violating the Corporate Dress Code through mooning.
According to our Dress Code policy, mooning is prohibited and it is not tolerated. Those caught will be punished with 100 lashes on their bare bottoms followed by immediate termination. This will be done with extreme prejudice.
Our Corporate Dres Code is there for your benefit. We must be professionals and work should be serious, not enjoyable.
Who the hell deep fries crawfish? For 3 hours? No, I'd recommend a pack of your favorite crawfish boil seasoning, Zatarain's or whatever, toss in some onions, corn, lemons, and potatoes, and buy a pound of boudin and a six pack to round out your meat. Might as well buy a few more pounds of crawfish while you're at it--just one is barely an appetizer, much less a meal.
I remember a while ago here in the states (might have been on a tv show, i can't keep it straight, ripped from the headlines and what not). Some flasher was arrested for indecent exposure, but he argued that since he had some political message writen on his piece that he was protected by the first amendment. I think he lost, still interesting though.
The second amendment does not refer to individuals but to state militias. That's why there's an extra comma. The NRA says otherwise, but the Supreme Court has never chosen to discuss the matter, though the fact that few of the various gun control laws have been found unconstitutional speaks for the militia interpretation.
Except for the fact that all able-bodied men, and in this age of enlightenment it would include women as well, are considered part of the militia. That's the way it was when the Constitution was written, and if the shit hit the fan today, it would be the same. We're too damn soft these days. Attempting to confiscate all the guns would be the stupidest possible thing I can think of. No possible way to get them all. No way to prevent more from coming into the country (witness the War On Drugs for confirmation of that). So we end up with a disarmed population, armed criminals, and way too fucking few police to make the slightest bit of difference. Yeah.. I can see how that would be such a huge improvement.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Uhm, no you do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
fact: a gun in the house is more likely to fire a bullet in to the body of a member of that household than an intruder or criminal.
fact: armed robbery adds significant amount of jail time to a sentence than an unarmed one.
fact: the police are currently outgunned and outarmed over criminals because of the NRA's opposition to even the most COMMON SENCE gun control laws.
fact: the 2nd amendment not only says "militia".. it says "well organized militia", which is something you gun nuts are way too quick to ignore. Most people who own guns in the U.S. do not take proper safety precautions, they do not know how to properly care for and fire their weapons, and THERE IS NO FSCKING WAY they could be considered "well organized militias"
Re:Uhm, no you do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am assuming that you are simply trolling, but since there are many uninformed people out there that would be inclined to believe what you say, I feel I have to respond. Bon Apetite!
fact: a gun in the house is more likely to fire a bullet in to the body of a member of that household than an intruder or criminal.
First of all, this much over-used "fact" comes from a single study (Kellermann Arthur & Reay Don, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) that has long since been discredited. If you'd like to find out what guns in the home are really likely to do, read Gary Kleck'sstudy. He's a former gun-control nut that has seen the light after doing his own studies. According to him, guns are used in defense of home and family between 1 million and 2 million times a year in the US. In the vast majority of these cases the gun isn't even fired. In the majority of the rest of the cases, nobody is injured.
fact: armed robbery adds significant amount of jail time to a sentence than an unarmed one.
Sure, and murder adds quite a bit to a jail sentence too, but it's not gonna matter much to the victim.
fact: the police are currently outgunned and outarmed over criminals because of the NRA's opposition to even the most COMMON SENCE gun control laws.
This makes very little sense to me. Automatic weapons, and many semi-automatic weapons are already outlawed everywhere except under special circumstances and with special licenses. How exactly are police outgunned? Outnumbered, sure. But outgunned? The problem is the same one I mentioned before. Criminals don't obey the law!! Duh! That's why they're criminals! You expect that if we outlaw guns that the criminals will just give them up and never try to get them again? What planet do you live on?
fact: the 2nd amendment not only says "militia".. it says "well organized militia", which is something you gun nuts are way too quick to ignore. Most people who own guns in the U.S. do not take proper safety precautions, they do not know how to properly care for and fire their weapons, and THERE IS NO FSCKING WAY they could be considered "well organized militias"
This is the only thing you've said that makes any kind of sense at all. The one thing that I actually might be inclined to support is a firearms license. Similar to a driver's license, it would certify that you know how to properly handle, fire, and secure a firearm. It would not be tied to any individual firearm, but there could likely be different classes of license for different sorts of guns. The problem with requiring such a license for ownership is that it can be abused by the government to prevent certain people from owning guns, for arbitrary reasons, even if they could pass the license requirements. I don't think it's a good idea for us to have to beg the government for the right to defend ourselves and our families.
As for the militia part, let me paraphrase something that has been written elsewhere: "the "militia" the second amendment refers to is not a formal military unit -- which the Constitution forbids states to raise [Art. I ' 10, cl. 3 -- but a colonial system which required that every household be armed and every trustworthy man serve with his own arms." There are some very different views on both sides. We aren't likely to settle those differences here on/.
Roger that. Didn't mean to imply that that was a bad thing. Just trying to figure out what the heck he was getting at with his comment about police being outgunned.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Australia?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hey dipshit- don't feed the trolls.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In Soviet Russa the police moon you
Why does this remind me of a Simpsons episode?
by
Radical+Rad
·
· Score: 2
I wonder if his punishment will be to be kicked in the bum with an enormous boot?
Mooning depends on the context
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You can get away with mooning if it is performed on the back seat of a bus on the way to some sort of sports event. The mooners should preferably be drunk and have unshaven backsides.
Tradition also dictates that you should wiggle your arse from side to side.
It was a TV episode not a real event (unless the episode was based on the event). He was arguing that he saw a bunch of girls smoking, and - to get noticed - had written an anti-smoking message on his fleshy little friend.
But yeah, perhaps these guys saw that episode as well and decided to try it for mooning?
What a waste of taxpayers money
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What a load of shit. This is a terrible waste of taxpayers money.
There are a 2 reasons why this is happenning:
1) The offender appears to be aboriginal
2) He appears to be represented by aboriginal
legal council.
Now, flashing your ass is indecent exposure. The law says so, and that is the law. "Mooning" is flashing your ass, and is therefore against the law.
If a white australian male did this (Like im sure thousands do every year) there would be no fuss. Its only $100 for fucks sake. It isnt going to break the bank.
On the other hand, if you are a young aboriginal with a criminal record (and probably probation/parole) such an offence could land you in jail. Not that i am saying the offender had a record, but i BET there is more to this story than meets the eye.
The lawyer in this case really needs to be strung up by the balls and flogged. This is ludicrous. The legal system really _needs_ cases like this clogging up the system. Asif.
I couldn't help but notice that every site you referenced is not exactly impartial on the matter. I am not likely to read something by an individual who has already made up their mind and is merely looking to justify their opinions. I heard it once said that the very powerful and the very stupid have something in common - they change the facts to support their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to support the facts.
Find something that has been subject to peer-review and has been published in a legetimate and respected academic journal, and then you would have my attention.
-- ***
Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
The site I linked to provides MANY MANY references to back up their claims. I suggest you read it and investigate the references as well if you wish, and then if you still disagree you can at least explain why. Seems to me that they have some very good reasons and evidence to back up their opinions.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:References?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I couldn't help but notice that every site you referenced is not exactly impartial on the matter.
Do you know of any site that could really be considered impartial by people on both sides of the issue? I sure don't.
I am not likely to read something by an individual who has already made up their mind and is merely looking to justify their opinions.
Why not? You'd probably have a lot in common with them.
I heard it once said that the very powerful and the very stupid have something in common - they change the facts to support their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to support the facts.
I've heard lots of clever things like that before too. You've failed to show how it applies in this case though.
Find something that has been subject to peer-review and has been published in a legetimate and respected academic journal, and then you would have my attention.
Hmm. There's lots of links and references to published studies on guncite.com. But you probably don't want to waste your time checking those out, seeing as you've already made up your mind and are merely looking to justify your opinion. Have a nice day:)
Slashdot Mirror
So... now it's OK to say yes to crack!? When did THIS happen?!
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!
--sdem
"Magistrate Sheryl Cornack adjourned the case until December 13 to allow time for the federal and state attorneys-general to consider a response."
I think the delay might be to let Sheryl do some squats before showing her response.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
Australian authorities have released the goatse guy, who was in their custody after an incident involving a passing police car, a jelly doughnut, and a koala bear.
Now that I have your attention...
:).
... besides a nude beach. I remember a football coach at my high school getting canned for mooning a female math teacher, but that was private school -- no First Amendment.
Free speech cheerleaders that Americans are, I'm pretty sure this bare argument would get skewered in court, at least on public indecency grounds. Certainly you have the right to give a cop the finger, though I really really recommend you don't.
There was a classic SC case ( Cohen ) during the Vietnam War a man was observed in a couthouse corridor wearing a jacket emblazoned "Fuck the draft" on the back. He went into a courtroom, first taking the jacket off, and was arrested.
His conviction was overturned because the Court felt he had not crossed the line between his right of expression and the court's need for decorum (you couldn't break into song during a trial, for example, unless maybe you were a defendant pleading insanity
So there is a time, manner, place for different kinds of expression, even uncivil ones. I'm just not picturing the place for expressive mooning
Why is this under "Your Rights Online"? Shouldn't this be under "It's funny. Laugh"?
have the right to bear arms...
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
This is the fish's way of telling you that it's ready to be eaten. Put the fish (still alive, important) in a large kettle filled with hot oil. Let the fish fry for about 3 hours. Serve with rice..
*You are not allowed to read this*
The right to bare arms? Just wondering...
The constitution doesn't speak about any right to bear arms. It only says that the government may own arms and that private ownership of arms could be outlawed. A ban on the private ownership of all guns would not only be sensible, but 100% constitutional.
What a Beowulf cluster of these guys would look like?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Has anybody heard the term "larrikin moon" (used in the article) before? This is a new one for me, and Google came up empty.
"Magistrate Sheryl Cornack adjourned the case until December 13 to allow time for the federal and state attorneys-general to consider a response."
Does this mean the attorneys-general are preparing to present their rebuttal?
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1969
To: All Employees
Subject: Mooning and our Corporate Dress Code
As your CEO, it has come to my attention that many people are violating the Corporate Dress Code through mooning.
According to our Dress Code policy, mooning is prohibited and it is not tolerated. Those caught will be punished with 100 lashes on their bare bottoms followed by immediate termination. This will be done with extreme prejudice.
Our Corporate Dres Code is there for your benefit. We must be professionals and work should be serious, not enjoyable.
Sincerely,
You Corporate CEO
Laissez les bon temps rouler!
I remember a while ago here in the states (might have been on a tv show, i can't keep it straight, ripped from the headlines and what not). Some flasher was arrested for indecent exposure, but he argued that since he had some political message writen on his piece that he was protected by the first amendment. I think he lost, still interesting though.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Give 'im the Boot!
The second amendment does not refer to individuals but to state militias. That's why there's an extra comma. The NRA says otherwise, but the Supreme Court has never chosen to discuss the matter, though the fact that few of the various gun control laws have been found unconstitutional speaks for the militia interpretation.
hey dipshit- don't feed the trolls.
In Soviet Russa the police moon you
I wonder if his punishment will be to be kicked in the bum with an enormous boot?
You can get away with mooning if it is performed on the back seat of a bus on the way to some sort of sports event. The mooners should preferably be drunk and have unshaven backsides.
Tradition also dictates that you should wiggle your arse from side to side.
You can make this possible in the US, too, by donating to moonthewhitehouse.com.
It was a TV episode not a real event (unless the episode was based on the event). He was arguing that he saw a bunch of girls smoking, and - to get noticed - had written an anti-smoking message on his fleshy little friend.
But yeah, perhaps these guys saw that episode as well and decided to try it for mooning?
What a load of shit. This is a terrible waste of taxpayers money.
There are a 2 reasons why this is happenning:
1) The offender appears to be aboriginal
2) He appears to be represented by aboriginal
legal council.
Now, flashing your ass is indecent exposure. The law says so, and that is the law. "Mooning" is flashing your ass, and is therefore against the law.
If a white australian male did this (Like im sure thousands do every year) there would be no fuss. Its only $100 for fucks sake. It isnt going to break the bank.
On the other hand, if you are a young aboriginal with a criminal record (and probably probation/parole) such an offence could land you in jail. Not that i am saying the offender had a record, but i BET there is more to this story than meets the eye.
The lawyer in this case really needs to be strung up by the balls and flogged. This is ludicrous. The legal system really _needs_ cases like this clogging up the system. Asif.
The offence, ...., became a sticky constitutional issue.... (emphasis mine)
Something about seeing the word "sticky" in an article about mooning makes me think this wasn't proofread.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I couldn't help but notice that every site you referenced is not exactly impartial on the matter. I am not likely to read something by an individual who has already made up their mind and is merely looking to justify their opinions. I heard it once said that the very powerful and the very stupid have something in common - they change the facts to support their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to support the facts.
Find something that has been subject to peer-review and has been published in a legetimate and respected academic journal, and then you would have my attention.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Ah.... reminds me of a recipe I heard for "blowfish".
Put the fish in a big pot fulla water. Put in herbs. Spices, a bit of butter. boil for two hours, throw away the fish and eat the pot.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.