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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
-- "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
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?
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
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/.
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
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
have the right to bear arms...
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
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?
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."
I wonder if his punishment will be to be kicked in the bum with an enormous boot?
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
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 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's study. 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
Here's a few more facts for you.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.