Slashdot Mirror


Pair Arrested After Telling Lawyer Jokes

fembots writes "Two men were arrested for telling lawyer jokes while standing in line leading into First District Court. A spokesman for the Nassau courts said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court."

657 comments

  1. Slow news day? by SYFer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So in this case, "Your Rights Online" refers merely to the fact that these jokesters were standing "on line." With all due respect, I just don't see how this is Slash-worthy.

    Next!

    --
    "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    1. Re:Slow news day? by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it pertains to your right to say what you just said. Literary elements such as Satire have allowed people to say things they could not say directly. This pair was arrested for cracking jokes. The questions are: What precedent may be set? What comes next?

    2. Re:Slow news day? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, it pertains to no such thing. Drop the agenda-mongering and look at the facts of the case: Two men were causing a disturbance on government property. When given the opportunity to stop, they refused, knowing full well that they were in danger of being arrested on a misdemeanor charge.

      These boys weren't exercising their right to free speech. They were, deliberately and with malicious intent, making a public nuisance of themselves. And we have laws against that sort of thing.

      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.

    3. Re:Slow news day? by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Because it pertains to your right to say what you just said. Literary elements such as Satire have allowed people to say things they could not say directly


      But how is it related to YRO - Your Rights *ONLINE*

    4. Re:Slow news day? by SilverspurG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead

      If some hoidy-toidy lawyer down at the courthouse can't take it then tell him to close his ears. For crying out loud, what is this, kindergarten? Did he really have to go running to the teacher,"Make them stop! Make them stop!"

      public nuisance

      My butt. What's the legal definition for that? "Anything we want when we feel like it"?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    5. Re:Slow news day? by Glock27 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Oh, it pertains to no such thing. Drop the agenda-mongering and look at the facts of the case: Two men were causing a disturbance on government property. When given the opportunity to stop, they refused, knowing full well that they were in danger of being arrested on a misdemeanor charge.

      How, exactly, were they "causing a disturbance"? Some people laughed? I mean, what exactly is the First Amendment about again? Did they yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I think not!

      These boys weren't exercising their right to free speech. They were, deliberately and with malicious intent, making a public nuisance of themselves. And we have laws against that sort of thing.

      I suspect the crowd of people in line were fine with the jokes...it offended one lawyer and the hammer came down. It is especially ironic given the "kings and peasants" analogy used in the article. (Did you read it BTW?)

      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.

      One person's shithead is another person's role model. THAT is the point of the first amendment. Just because you don't like it gives you no right to stop it. I mean, look at Jesse Jackson's marches through certain parts of the south...I guarantee that most people there think he's a shithead. However, he has the RIGHT to express his views.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    6. Re:Slow news day? by Various+Assortments · · Score: 1

      Congrats, you're the 10,000,000th person that needs to be told that THIS IS AN ONLINE SITE therefore any addressing of rights may be called "your rights, online".

      Did you run out of other things to complain about?

    7. Re:Slow news day? by ccarson · · Score: 1

      So, am I not allowed to tell layer jokes now?

    8. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
      But how is it related to YRO - Your Rights *ONLINE*
      ... maybe because it's related to your rights, and it's posted on-line?

      Stay on-topic by adding lawyer jokes here

      It was so cold I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.

      Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?
      A: A hooker will stop fucking you when you're dead.

      Q: What do you call 100 lawyers buried in sand up to their neck?
      A: Not enough sand.

      Q: A lawyer and a rock are pushed off a 100-story building at the same time. Which hits the ground first?
      A: Who gives a fuck!
    9. Re:Slow news day? by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you ever have to go to court for any reason, I'm going to show up and heckle your lawyer to the point he can't defend you properly. I can do it too. I'm the alpha asshole. I'll humiliate him until he goes home crying.

      Does your right to a fair trial supercede my right to "freedom of speech"?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    10. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I call shenanegans. I'm sick of these right wingers staging incidents to further their agenda. Remember the guy who claimed his daughters sign was ripped down by an unruly democrat? The guy who was fired for teaching the declaration of independence because it contained biblical passages.

      It is all garbage designed to raise your ire so they can claim a broad mandate for their political agenda.

    11. Re:Slow news day? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Well. Even ignoring the fact that there might sometimes be a story that doesn't fit perfect in a category (but is still /.-worthy), you seem to be forgetting how flexible english grammar can be at times. It could mean "your rights" (online). After all, you're reading it online. Assuming that it's your "rights online" is kinda dumb.

    12. Re:Slow news day? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      So, am I not allowed to tell layer jokes now?

      Not in the presence of a bricklayer. Or hens, I suppose, the PETArds will get you.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    13. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.
      The only shithead was the lawyer, who probably also bitched and whined when the TRex at the lawyer in Jurassic Park and the audience cheered http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_37.htm

      Quote from the article:

      In all the movies of recent years, there have been few surer audience-pleasing scenes than the moment in Jurassic Park where the dinosaur eats the lawyer. In my theater and I suspect yours too, the audience burst into laughter and cheers.
      ... check out this choice list of problems with current law practice from the article ..
      * We have enacted countless new laws, we use them to try to control more of life, and these laws are often vague, not clearly spelling out what conduct is wrongful and what the legal consequences might be of overstepping the line.

      * We have expanded damage theories to the point that we are willing to countenance the mulcting of defendants of amounts that all previous American generations and the citizens of all foreign countries would consider sheerly fantastic.

      * We have liberalized procedure. As long ago as the 1930s we began to embrace the system of notice pleading, in which you can drag someone to court without saying what he may have done wrong. In the 1970s we drastically liberalized discovery, making it far easier to demand the filing cabinets of your opponent. Through the "long-arm" jurisdiction revolution, we liberalized forum-shopping so that you could shop around for whichever judge or jurisdiction is most hostile to your opponent or most slanted toward your own ideological view.

      * We liberalized the admission of expert testimony to allow lawyers to keep a scientifically weak case alive by introducing the testimony of partisan, fringe experts whether or not they reflect mainstream thinking in the relevant discipline.
      The DMCA, the PATRIOT Act, and SCO's gaming of the system all come to mind.
    14. Re:Slow news day? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Even if his lawyer ran off, he can go in and let them no his lawyer ran off. It's also nice to know your lawyer was that big of a pansy beforehand. He could also claim inadequate defense and if it were a civil matter, sue the lawyer for abandoning him. The difference in this case was that the men weren't heckling a specific lawyer. They were just telling jokes. Please, remove your head from your anus.

    15. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      RTFA.

      This was in a line, not in a court-room.

    16. Re:Slow news day? by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What's the legal definition for [public nuisance]? "Anything we want when we feel like it"?
      Got it in one. There are so many different, contridictory laws that a cop can arrest just about anyone if he feels like it. They have the power, you don't. Grovel like the peasant you are in their eyes, and they might not hurt you.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    17. Re:Slow news day? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      I'll humiliate him until he goes home crying

      If that happens the bar should revoke his license and I'll be entitled to a new attorney. Seriously, that's what a good portion of graduate studies are: learning how to take crap from people who don't matter to you. If this particular attorney managed to skate through on easy street with a pampered butt then he's getting what's coming to him.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    18. Re:Slow news day? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      That's fine.

      I can guarantee by the time the lawyer makes it to the courtroom, he's not focused on your case.

      It's just a matter of finding the right buttons and pushing them over and over. If you think you've crossed a line and gone too far, that means you're just starting. Hell look at my posting history, see how many people I can get riled up just by dissing the iPod.

      He'd either be fuming about what he can do to get back at me, or something else.

      Whoever filed the charges against this guy was doing just that. He was focused on getting back at them. I pity his client, that's the guy who should be suing.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    19. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'll humiliate him until he goes home crying.

      What are you going to do...call him a lawyer?

    20. Re:Slow news day? by over_exposed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, I could see them getting cited for public disturbance (if it was interfering with the day-to-day business of the courthouse or something like that) and maybe getting a ticket... but SUED? Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ....

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    21. Re:Slow news day? by Tassach · · Score: 3, Funny
      Stay on-topic by adding lawyer jokes here
      OK:

      Q: Why don't sharks eat lawyers?
      A: Professional Courtesy

      Q: What's the difference between a dead possum in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
      A: There are skid marks in front of the possum.

      Q: What do you call 1,000 lawyers on a sinking ship?
      A: A good start Q: What's the other difference between a lawyer and a hooker?
      A: There are some things a hooker won't do for money

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    22. Re:Slow news day? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.

      Actually freedom of speech IS freedom to be a shithead without getting arrested for it.

      Where we begin getting on sticky ground is if people are inciting others to violence or panic, etc. Incidentally, I make no comment on the specific case in this story, but speak in general.

      A quote I have pasted before:

      The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.

      -- Lord Chief Justice Halisham

    23. Re:Slow news day? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      The constitution is about what the GOVERNMENT can't do, not about what I can't do.

      Your government isn't allowed to stop me from having a fair trial. That doesn't mean that an emotionally shattered lawyer is a breach of the constitution.

    24. Re:Slow news day? by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lawyer that complained didn't grant an arrest warrant, nor did he personally arrest the two. A judge or a police officer had to do that. I can go to the police and complain about you being an idiot, but they won't arrest you unless they feel it is necessary.

      Have they even been formally indicted yet? I wouldn't be surprised to see the prosecutor drop the case or bring in a grand jury knowing they'll turn it down.

      --
      What?
    25. Re:Slow news day? by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      One of their complaints is that the lawers don't have to go through security, so you'll have make them feel bad *really fast*.

    26. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your words are your weapons! O verbal ninja.

    27. Re:Slow news day? by BinBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.

      Then what's it for? We don't need it to protect people the government likes.

    28. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      To be effective, you don't go after the lawyer - you go after his client.

      This applies both in the courtroom and outside.

      A lawyer who has to both counter your moves and "manage" his client is less effective.

    29. Re:Slow news day? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.Indeed it does protect that very thing.

      Tell me: where in the 1st Amendement does it say "unless you are a shithead"? You can say anything you want; perhaps you can't say things that would cause harm to another, but it took the Supreme Court to determine that limitation, even. And when the Supremes went so far as to say that, notice that they didn't exclude "shithead statements" from the protection of the 1st Amendment, either.

      As for why being a shithead is protected: that's a subjective judgement. If I think the things you say are disrespectful towards me, do you think I should be able to have you arrested?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    30. Re:Slow news day? by sglane81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A wise man once told me that the right to free speech is not the freedom to say what you want. It is the freedom someone has to say things you don't want to hear.

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    31. Re:Slow news day? by malfunct · · Score: 1

      These guys make it thier business to stand outside courtrooms and heckle lawyers and judges to demonstrate in advocacy for more open court rooms. I have no opinion on the issue but they may well have gone over the line and become a nusance. The article does a good job of not mentioning just how disruptive they might have been so its hard to say if thier arrest was warrented. I have seen quite a number of protestors go right to the edge of reasonable and beyond so its really hard to say.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    32. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
      Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit?
      A: The bucket.
      Here's the official GNU lawyer jokes page: http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/lawyers.html
    33. Re:Slow news day? by damiam · · Score: 1

      The section title is not "your rights, online", it's "your rights online". If you don't understand the distinction, perhaps you would benefit from a remedial English class.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    34. Re:Slow news day? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      How, exactly, were they "causing a disturbance"? Some people laughed? I mean, what exactly is the First Amendment about again? Did they yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I think not!

      Well, you weren't there, so you don't know exactly how they were acting. The jokes were probably not the cause of their arrest, it was the disturbance part. Considering they were there explicitly to cause a disturbance, they were probably breaking the law.

      Or do you think that someone can just come up to you, start making lawyer jokes, and punch you in the face? Just because one action is protected speech doesn't mean that any parallel actions are protected as well.

    35. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, i guess that makes you smarter than the people who um, only CREATED the site and OPERATE it every day. Maybe they know what they intended? I think it's pretty clear from the context.

    36. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...... You know... free speech is USUALLY associated with liberals and democrats. So, I'm not quite sure where you are coming from.

    37. Re:Slow news day? by odin53 · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are many instances when the government can restrict your freedom of speech. In this case, courthouses are public places, but they are not meant to be public forums. The government can restrict speech in "nonpublic forums" like this if the restriction is "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest" and viewpoint-neutral. That's why courts can throw hecklers out of the courtroom and even prevent people from protesting too close to the building.

      So the question isn't whether one's right to a fair trial supersedes your freedom of speech. The question is whether a restriction on your freedom of speech is justified by the circumstances and whether the restriction itself strikes an acceptable balance.

    38. Re:Slow news day? by weorthe · · Score: 1

      The constitution is about what the GOVERNMENT can't do, not about what I can't do.

      The constitution of the US is about what the government CAN do. This is supposed to be a carefully limited set of powers, and everything else is "reserved to the states, or the people."

      --
      cat * >> sig
    39. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outside the courthouse, however, is one of the MOST public forums. They can't prevent people from protesting at the courthouse, just from obstructing the free movement of those using it. Which these two coots were not doing any more effectively than the security. You have failed it. Looks like you'll have to go into politics.

    40. Re:Slow news day? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead."

      Freedom of expression is absolutely the freedom to be a shithead. It's also the freedom to tell someone else he's acting like a shithead. In fact, it also consists of accepting that people can present their uninformed and unenlightened opinions as gospel truth - and we should be thankful for that, because without it, slashdot couldn't exist. 8^)

      The only limitation on freedom of expression is on the actions that arise from it. I can lie to you all I want, but if I use those lies to get you to write me a cheque for $10,000, I might find myself subject to felony charges.

      While certain US laws allow for prosecution of those who disturb the peace, I for one am ashamed that some construe them to include a couple of old fogeys telling jokes on the courthouse steps.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    41. Re:Slow news day? by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      This has been going on solidly for days now. A few days ago we had the worthless story about "the bestest DVDs EVAR!!!! List", then we had a story that the_mad_poster commented on which was also worthless, and now this crap. I'm starting to think that someone should go over to Slashdot central and make sure they haven't all been gassed to death by a faulty heater or something. Maybe the editors have been replaced with a shell script? Whatever the case, Slashdot has had some pretty worthless stories that are beyond belief this week. Many of them under the "your rights online" heading. Someone needs to put down the crackpipe and get to editing... ;P

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    42. Re:Slow news day? by lachlan76 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ok, I'm not in the US, but I was under the impression that it says thing like the government can't:
      • Stop freedom of speech
      • Stop you from arming yourselves
      • Just arrest people for no reason
    43. Re:Slow news day? by sulli · · Score: 1

      Clearly a New Yorker submitted thhe story. Outside the NYC metro area it would be "Your Rights In Line."

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    44. Re:Slow news day? by weorthe · · Score: 1

      The Bill of Rights was added after the fact because many people wanted "insurance" that the limitations of government would be clear and indesputable. But they are theoretically unnecessary, and routinely ignored anyway.

      --
      cat * >> sig
    45. Re:Slow news day? by radishfarmer · · Score: 1

      Now -- we have laws, even some good ones, regarding public nuisances. But freedom of speech is nothing if limited to only those things that do not offend or disturb. Quiet acquiescence rarely needs constitutional protection.

    46. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, smartass? Take a closer look at the actual wording:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of those people who are not shitheads peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    47. Re:Slow news day? by westlake · · Score: 1
      A wise man once told me that the right to free speech is not the freedom to say what you want. It is the freedom someone has to say things you don't want to hear.

      a wise man would also tell you to take your dog and pony show elsewhere unless you have six months to spare for an intimate tour of the county lock-up. free speech within a courthouse has very limited dimensions.

    48. Re:Slow news day? by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Those two men were exercising their constitutionally-protected rights on public property, and they had every right to be there. Do you know what malice means? Apparently not.

      Oh, and you're doing a dis-service to to Aaron Sorkin and John Spencer.

    49. Re:Slow news day? by Associate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The can't part is applied to many new laws or how those laws are presented to the people. Usually they are written to take back rights the government, in it's many forms, has assumed.

      Think of it this way.
      For citizens, in America a right not expressly forbiden is allowed. And I don't mean this as a joke, but in Soviet Russia a right not expressly allowed is forbiden.
      As for the government, in America a right not expressly allowed is forbiden. In Soviet Russia a right not expressly forbiden is allowed.
      At least that's how I came to understand it. The American example demonstrates that power is in the hands of the people. At least idealy.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    50. Re:Slow news day? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. If we take out the part of being at a court house we would say there was a group of people. Now "Freedom of Speech" says you have the right to speak your mind so they did. Out of all the people there only one protested and they were arrested.

      Lets take the same senario to a union roadblock, you have a group of people who have a certain mindset / goal and are demonstrating using their rights. Now if you have one person that objects does that mean the heads of the union should be arrested as well?

      Let the lawyer face it lawyers have been caught with thier hand in the cookie jars too many times and that has caused them a bad name. If the public feels that strongly about it they have the Freedom Of Speech to say what they think. In a society where majority rules why is it the governament of all entities backs up the one person rather than the crowd?

      And anyway why did he care? We all know lawyers don't have feelings anyway.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    51. Re:Slow news day? by slam+smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If lawyer jokes in the security line at a courthouse rattle your lawyer. I would recommend a new lawyer.

    52. Re:Slow news day? by putaro · · Score: 1

      They were standing in line OUTSIDE the courthouse.

    53. Re:Slow news day? by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, "liberalized" evidence proceedings have easily ensured the conviction of Microsoft. The Burst.com case probably couldn't go forward without these proceedings, and could very well set a further precedent for not only discovery but lawyer-attorney privledges!

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    54. Re:Slow news day? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead."

      Actually. it pretty much does.

      "They were, deliberately and with malicious intent,"

      Yup. They where doing it intentionaly and there was malice towards lawyers involved...but:

      "making a public nuisance of themselves."

      is not true. They where maybe being too loud...but even that I doubt, seeing as they where 70 years old. Anyway, to quote the article, they where charged with:

      "engaging in disorderly conduct"

      by a single lawyer who happened to stand in line. But seeing as the two where standing in a line (quite orderly) and not drunk, the USA has now become a place where you can actually get arrested for telling a joke.

      You bunch of litigeous bastards: and I do mean all of you. Because it's the fault not just of some idot laywer without a funny bone in his body; it's the fault of the security guards who actually had the gall to respond to his request, and also the bystanders who let it happen.

      "And we have laws against that sort of thing."

      No, even you (the US) don't. Not even the PATRIOT ACT has provisions against being slightly too loud and telling bad jokes in public (unless you're busking for money without a license).

      Now I have to agree with the people who say this article has no place on /.. I do however think the world should (yet again) be up in arms and filled with moral outrage that something like this can happen in a so-called-democracy.
      But then again...it really seems the thoughtpolice have done their job. Sad.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    55. Re:Slow news day? by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      The first two are correct but the third one is up in the air. Sure, *in theory* police and others aren't supposed to arrest people for no reason, but it happens on a daily basis. Keep in mind this is the exception, not the rule, but it does indeed happen.

      After all, Kevin Mitnick sat in jail for years without charges filed against him and an opportunity to fight back.

    56. Re:Slow news day? by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      That's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

    57. Re:Slow news day? by zokrath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a fair sight worse than simply not wanting to hear what someone is saying; the lawyers do not want these things said at all, or for them to be heard by anyone, because then people might start questioning their power and seeking legal reforms, and we cannot have that, can we?

      Here's hoping that I am not sued for posting this/

    58. Re:Slow news day? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Q: What do you call 100 lawyers buried in sand up to their neck?
      A: Not enough sand.
      Proper version:

      Q: What do you do with 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?
      A: Get more sand.

      And another:

      Scientists are now reporting that they've started using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments. They gave three reasons why:

      1. There are now more lawyers than rats.

      2. The scientists don't get as attached to the lawyers.

      3. There are some things even a rat won't do.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    59. Re:Slow news day? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      As long ago as the 1930s we began to embrace the system of notice pleading, in which you can drag someone to court without saying what he may have done wrong
      At least the US legal system did something right today - after holding a supect who is a citizen of an ally for THREE YEARS without charge they are finally allowing him to go home, where presumably he will be able to see a lawyer for the first time since he was detained.

      The alternative to having lawyers in US juristriction already exists in some convenient lawless zone in Cuba, and it is not pleasant.

    60. Re:Slow news day? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      The freedom of speech is the freedom to be a shit head!! If i want to lay naked in a wading pool full of lime jellow smoking cigars, drinking whiskey and looking at porno, thats my right as a free american. at least it was...

    61. Re:Slow news day? by ShinmaWa · · Score: 1

      Because, God knows, lawyers have such an ironclad positive reputation already and no one at all is seeking legal reforms. These two jokers might have brought the legal system's halcyon days of salad and song to a crushing end!

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    62. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heil Onkel Sam!

    63. Re:Slow news day? by albanac · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, that last was de facto repealed by US-PATRIOT, since the un-supported 'reason', "We think they might be, or might be associated with, terrorists" is now considered sufficient for arresting someone.

      ~cHris

    64. Re:Slow news day? by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Or doesn't - depends whether or not you're in Texas at the time.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    65. Re:Slow news day? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      I said they were the laws, I didn't say that the police followed them.

    66. Re:Slow news day? by japes · · Score: 1

      Q: What is the difference between a lawyer and a flounder?

      A: One is a scum sucking bottom dweller, the other is a fish!.

    67. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, "liberalized" evidence proceedings have easily ensured the conviction of Microsoft.
      Standard Oil was convicted under much harder rules. And it's not like the government even bothered to try the worst offences of Microsoft - Boies was shit then as a prosecutor, and he's shit now working for Sco.
    68. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You forgot that PETA won't be on their ass for unethical treatment of a lawyer (is there any such thing?)

    69. Re:Slow news day? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I heard it a bit differently (a bit meaner :-):
      Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
      A: One is a cold-blooded scum-sucking bottom-feeder and the other is a fish
    70. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...sniff, sniff.., (blinks back the tears) Doesn't anybody love me?

      Your friendly neighborhood litigator.

    71. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "look at Jesse Jackson's marches through certain parts of the south...I guarantee that most people there think he's a shithead."

      most people everywhere think that JJ's a shithead. It has nothing to do with his marches, and everything to do with his mouth.

    72. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in mother russia, joke arrests you!

    73. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop dissing the iPod, you fuck.

    74. Re:Slow news day? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Please explain how telling jokes is a 'public nuisance.'

    75. Re:Slow news day? by saintp · · Score: 1
      Considering they were there explicitly to cause a disturbance, they were probably breaking the law.
      No they weren't. From several other new sources (but not the one cited in the summary):
      On Monday, however, Kash said he was due in court to answer a drunken driving charge from a year and a half ago.
    76. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a dumb shit. What the hell does this have to do with right or left wing?

    77. Re:Slow news day? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      They were in the court HOUSE, not the court ROOM, dumbass. Ever hear of a lobby?

    78. Re:Slow news day? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      It's just a matter of finding the right buttons and pushing them over and over.

      And that is a flaw in the person who's buttons are being pushed, not the one pushing them. If you get offended, thats your fault and your problem. Learn to deal with things outside your little world.

    79. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My guess is that it was their goal to get arrested if there were people there who would do it. They were obviously trying to make a point. My guess is, that they knew exactly what their rights were and made sure to stay within their rights because the whole point was to get *wrongly* arrested to illustrate the fact that our behavior is curbed from what it would be if we weren't *afraid* of being arrested wrongly. It was a trap and the authorities stepped right into it. They showed the world that people are JUSTIFIED in behaving like timid peasants afraid to offend those with the power. They showed the world that lawyers & such are INDEED the butt-munches the jokes made them out to be.

      The tactic is called baiting. It has been used by Ghandi, MLK, Osama bin Laden and others for ages.

    80. Re:Slow news day? by homebrewmike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, that's the reason why we have lawyers in the first place, now isn't it?

      Mr. Cop can go ahead and try to nail you for anything he likes. If you say fuck in front of a bunch of school children, and the cop nails you for it, just go to court.

      You explain why you said "fuck" in front of the innocents, and a jury of your peers say "yah, dat's a good thing" or "pay the fine, bozo."

      That's why we have a legal system, and not Judge Dredd running about.

      Don't forget /. crowd - it's YOUR responsiblity for making things work. We are the government, we elect our peers. It's your responsibility to do your homework, write your respresentatives when things are bad (and good), VOTE in every election, and don't try to get out of jury duty.

      The thing the founding fathers were also very afraid of (besides an oppressive government) was an ignorant society - it's our duty to stay informed, and help our countrymen do the same.

      So, quit your damn Government Paranoia rant, get off your lazy butt, and get involved.

    81. Re:Slow news day? by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      We at the law firms of Dewey, Beatum, and Run represent the roman catholic church in this lawsuit against you for causing a disturbance with the malicious use of the phrase "jesus tapdancing christ". :P

      --
      It's been a long time.
    82. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How naive.

    83. Re:Slow news day? by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry sir, but that wasn't me! I specifically said "Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ." I believe you're looking for the one-armed man over there.

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    84. Re:Slow news day? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      There's a hitch on all of those things, though. The middle-school metaphor my teachers used was, "My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins." Guess what? People get arrested in court houses for not being quiet. I had to sit through a few hours in the Saginaw Family Court for a high school assignment, and no less than fifteen people were arrested for making noise in the hallway. Noise in the hallway - worse if it causes people to laugh, since that means more noise in the hallway - means noise in the courtroom, which generally means an angry judge. An angry judge means a, "Contempt of Court," charge and you get to sit in jail for the day.

    85. Re:Slow news day? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who thinks this is all insane?

    86. Re:Slow news day? by AdrainB · · Score: 1

      One person's shithead is another person's shinolahead.

    87. Re:Slow news day? by Ipingforpong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Q: What do you do if you see a lawyer with his head blown off?
      A: Laugh and reload

      A lawyer gets killed in a horrible accident. Stop cheering and let me finish the joke.

      Q: Why do lawyers where ties?
      A: To keep their foreskins down.

      Q: Whats the ideal weight for a lawyer?
      A: About three pounds with the urn.

    88. Re:Slow news day? by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1
      That's correct as far as theory goes. In practice, the power of the American government hinges on just how far "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper" can be taken.

      If you're not familiar with these terms, the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states. The power to regulate interstate commerce is delegated to the federal government (specifically Congress), and the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the powers delgated to Congress is delegated to Congress. Therefore, the government can [make laws enabling it to] do whatever it likes as long as it relates somehow to "interstate commerce". You'll even see other branches taking action because it is "necessary and proper", even though that phrase expressly refers to the Congress.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    89. Re:Slow news day? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Trying to convince children that the scientific community has any doubts about evolution is simply dishonest.
      > Does your right to a fair trial

      It seems that you think your right to ignorance supercedes reality.

      THEY WERE NOT IN A FUCKING COURT ROOM, THERE WAS NO TRIAL GOING ON.

      This should be treated exactly the same as if they were cracking lawyer jokes in line at McDonalds.

    90. Re:Slow news day? by BLAMM! · · Score: 2, Funny

      How many lawyers does it take to roof a house?
      Depends on how thin you slice them.

      How many lawyers does it take to stop a moving bus?
      Never enough.

      What do you buy a friend graduating from Law School?
      A lobotomy.

      What is brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?
      A doberman.

    91. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we have a legal system, and not Judge Dredd running about.

      Sure... and in the meantime, the guy who said "fuck" was kidnapped by the fascist cum-lapping pig, forced to talked to those shithead pigs against his will, forced to walk, move, run, stip. or whatever else the pig wants, and beaten if he resists. But don't worry, at least he's not shooting you in the head! Because THAT would be wrong, unless the pig can come up with a good excuse, and in that case it's the fault of the "criminal."

      Your legal system is an idiot, and you're a motherfucking pigfucker.

    92. Re:Slow news day? by fenris_23 · · Score: 1
      The freedom of speech allows one to express themselves freely yet certain kinds of speech can and are limited. For example..

      You do not have the right to express speech that incites violence or other crimes.

      Nor do you have the right to express speech in such a way that causes a public disturbance. you cannot drive down your steet with a megaphone at three in the morning expressing your opinion to your neighbors whether they want to hear them, or not.

      These men may represent a just cause but they do not have the right to stand in line in a government building and express views that are offensive to at least some of the people who work there. The jokes they made were clearly not speech between themselves but speech broadcasted to the entire room with the intent to force the people present to listen to their case. Not only was that wrong, they were offensive to the lawyers who worked there.

      I am not fond of lawyers either but I still respect them as I would like to be respected. If a lawyer happened to come to my place of work and decided to broadcast stupid jokes meant to be offensive to software engineers, I would want the removed as well.

    93. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The freedom of speech is not a freedom to be a shithead.

      That's exactly what it is. The explicit reason freedom of speech was guaranteed was so that you could not be punished just for saying things that the powers that be don't like. Sure, you can say "Well, just don't tell lawyer jokes in court if you don't want to get arrested" to which I respond "Well, just don't criticize the president's policies if you don't want to get arrested."

      It's not even that there's a fine line--it's that there is no line. If you allow the state to punish people for saying "Disruptive" things, you are advocating the abolition of freedom of speech. It's not hard to argue that a peaceful protest is "Disruptive." It's not hard to say that criticizing police brutality is "Disruptive." It's not hard to say that insulting the Almighty Emperor in public is "Disruptive."

      The first amendment was written specifically to protect people's right to say things that would piss off the people in charge. That was it's stated intent. This isn't an understandible exception--this is the exact scenario that the law was written to prevent.

    94. Re:Slow news day? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Nope. I think "contempt of court" is in almost all cases utter bullshit. The fact that you cannot defend yourself in certain ways just because it annoys a man (& sometimes women) in a black dress with a stained wooden hammer is insulting and a violation of a persons ability to have a fair trial.

    95. Re:Slow news day? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > lawyers have such an ironclad positive reputation already and no one at all is seeking legal reforms.

      Of course people are trying for reforms. The problem is that the people who admit it needs reformed will never come into the power required to make that change... because of the lawyers that base their job on keeping the system the way it is.

    96. Re:Slow news day? by alexo · · Score: 1


      >> public nuisance

      > My butt.


      If your butt is a public nuisance, may I suggest considering a diet change?

    97. Re:Slow news day? by Dabido · · Score: 1

      "I wouldn't be surprised to see the prosecutor drop the case or bring in a grand jury knowing they'll turn it down."

      I'm surprised it's got this far. I'm sure it will get thrown out as a matter of "de minimis non curat lex -- the law does not concern itself with trivial matters".

      What I don't understand is if the guy who complained was a Lawyer, what was he doing in line? The article clearly states that the Lawyers walk through with their passes liek Kings.

      Also, every Lawyer I've met usually tells Lawyer jokes. (And I used to drink at a pub where I knew a LOT of Lawyers, Solicitors and Law Clerks etc)

      In fact, the Lawyers I know, know more Lawyer jokes than anyone else I know.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    98. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, you can be arrested for anything.

      The "freedom" part depends on whether it holds up in court :-P

      -JP

    99. Re:Slow news day? by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true anonymous coward.

      > Your legal system is an idiot,
      > and you're a motherfucking pigfucker.
      Got a better one? The system is good, the ignorant masses aren't.

      It's obvious that you missed my point completely.

    100. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go so far as to say that telling lawyer jokes in a courthouse is akin to yelling the word "Nigger!" in a crowded ghetto.

  2. I dunno, something smells fishy... by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Okay, my first reaction: Petty abuse of power? By a lawyer? There's got to be some mistake.

    Reading the article, however, makes me wonder if we're really getting the whole story here. Given that these aren't just two random individuals but the founders of "Americans for Legal Reform", I personally smell an increased likelyhood that their side of things contains a certain amount of BS. Of course it's just my gut instinct talking and your milage may vary.

    Unfortunately this level of doubt precludes the normal level of moral outrage (aka, "hits" or "ad impressions") that these threads are supposed to generate, and for that I apologize.

    Now, answer me this: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by IdleTime · · Score: 3, Informative

      I saw the 2 guys and their lawyer on The Abrams Report on MSNBC today and it was hillarious. They were telling jokes while waiting to get through the metal detectors and one single lawyer got offended and reported them, anonymously...

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    2. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      None, they got themselves some cheap prison labor to do it.

    3. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100

      89 to prepare 10,000 subpoenas, 10 to stack them in a room and one to climb the stack to reach the lightbulb

    4. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yeah, according to them. According to the court:
      But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.

      "They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said. "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance. And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court."
      Frankly, they sound like jackasses. Dunno wtf their point was, but it certainly wasn't to have a conversation with each other.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Too bad "being a jackass" isn't illegal. Frankly, "disorderly conduct" sounds like legal bullshit to me, one of those things that isn't really illegal until some old hag complains about it, like those laws about swearing in front of women and children.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    6. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Too bad "being a jackass" isn't illegal.

      Being a jackass isn't illegal, but causing a disturbance in a courthouse is.

    7. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were some law we could use to prosecute people who conducted themselves in a disorderly manner in public...

    8. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub
      None. They are too busy screwing over 8 year olds.

    9. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Actually, "being a jackass" is definitely illegal. It's called "disorderly conduct," and it refers to any attempt to disquiet or agitate an otherwise orderly assembly of people. It's been against the law for as long as we've had laws.

    10. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      People do a LOT worse outside of abortion clinics without getting arrested. I think the charges against these guys are bogus.

    11. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, "being a jackass" is definitely illegal. It's called "disorderly conduct,"
      I'm an orderly jackass you incensitive clod!
    12. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      They never get around to putting a light bulb in, they're too busy trying to fuck it.

    13. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1
      Actually, "being a jackass" is definitely illegal. It's called "disorderly conduct," and it refers to any attempt to disquiet or agitate an otherwise orderly assembly of people. It's been against the law for as long as we've had laws.

      {head-implodes/}

      No, being a jackass is not illegal.

      • Being a jackass with a baseball bat is illegal.
      • Being a jackass with (provable) intent to get someone physically hurt is illegal.
      • Being a jackass with the intent to cause someone to be deprived of their rightful dues can be illegal.

      Unless you are going to tell me that a lawyer who apparently can't even comply with Constitutional requirement that the accused have to be faced by their accusers is due some sort of respect that you and I don't impose on each other, claiming these guys were disturbing the peace is definitely three steps over the line.

      Unless the jokes included something that somebody interpreted as a threat of violence (and that doesn't include making a few lawyers get real jobs), the lawyer who made the complaint was dangerously close to rejecting his own commitments to the law. The officers who arrested them were dangerously close to dereliction of duty.

      Unless other facts come out that indicate that there was real intent to incite riots or the like, I think that the judge that hears this should throw it out of court and maybe even threaten to charge the complainant with contempt of court. If those guys end up paying fines or going to jail, it's time for the residents there to impeach a judge and recall a few court officers.

    14. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I saw the 2 guys and their lawyer

      You would think they would defend themselves...

      Would the public reaction be different if they were telling racially insensitive jokes repeatedly in front of a black person?

      --
      What?
    15. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Throtex · · Score: 1

      Here's some more detail from Eugene Volokh:

      The Volokh Conspiracy

    16. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      How much am I allowed to harass you in public? Can I really harass you so long as I don't do it with a baseball bat?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    17. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Would the public reaction be different if they were telling racially insensitive jokes repeatedly in front of a black person?
      Lenny Bruce did. It's called making a point. Unpleasant and unpopular speach is protected by the First Amendment; things which are pleasant and popular don't need protecting.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    18. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      How much am I allowed to harass you in public?

      Is it morally any different than harassing someone in private?

      Consider: If these two fellas had cornered the lawyer in an elevator, pushed stop, and hit him up with lawyer jokes, could he still go running to the officer's skirts when the elevator door eventually opened?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    19. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by aronc · · Score: 1

      How much am I allowed to harass you in public? Can I really harass you so long as I don't do it with a baseball bat?

      See, you undercut your own argument there. Harassment. Different charge, different act, and has nothing to do with this case. Telling a joke to by buddy while waiting in line in a public place is not creating a disterbance unless their is some other mitigating circumstance (I'm physically barring the door while telling the joke, screaming it at the tops of my lungs, etc).

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    20. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1
      How much am I allowed to harass you in public? Can I really harass you so long as I don't do it with a baseball bat?

      I put up with a lot of public harassment in the public school system when I was growing up, some of it from teachers. The lessons I learned through that about things like moral courage were invaluable, and I think those sorts of lessons are required for a person to become truly free.

      I don't have the time to be thin skinned. Harass away.

      But don't expect me to listen. Even were we standing in line, I know how to tune you out.

    21. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      The illegal thing that they did was causing a public disturbance; my point was with respect to the public's reaction that they are victims and what they did should be protected by the First Amendment.

      However, take the same situation and trade "lawyer jokes" with "racist jokes," and more people would be willing to see how it could cause a disturbance. It's like getting on a bus and proceeding to tell everyone how bus drivers are all scum. You're not going to have a nice ride after that, and nor is anyone else.

      --
      What?
    22. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Now, answer me this: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      Three. One to make the bulb a copyright infringer by making a fake warez site, another to sniff him, and another to present the subpoena.

      Oh, screw in ... nevermind.

    23. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Joshua53077 · · Score: 1

      Hello all, Long time reader, first time poster...good to be here. I'm a lawyer in Nassau County and I have encountered these "gentleman" before. They regularly set up about 50 feet from the entrance of the Courthouse and yell extremely vile and rude things at the attorneys walking by. They did this to me...and yes, I'm well aware that lawyers aren't a bunch that many feel sorry for but think about how any of you would feel if you were walking into your job and were being screamed at. Doesn't make you feel too nice. I read that one of them was appearing in court that day to answer a DWI charge, which I do find amusing. They were apparently on line waiting to go through the magnetometers when they were telling the jokes. As innocent as I'm sure they seem, one must ask why BOTH of these men needed to appear on the DWI charge. Also, since I have seen them in action, I believe that they were trying to incite the attorney who was on line, since they do that regularly.

    24. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      and yell extremely vile and rude things at the attorneys walking by

      My old boss did that to me on a yearly basis as well as treating me with complete disdain throughout the year. No one felt sorry for me.

      that lawyers aren't a bunch that many feel sorry for

      Don't feel special. I don't feel sorry for anyone.

      Doesn't make you feel too nice

      Suck it up. If I were paid enough to wear a 3-piece, I'd learn to tune it out. As it is I settle for shirt-and-tie, and I bet I could still tune it out.

      to answer a DWI charge, which I do find amusing

      If the state funded cab fare the same way it funds ego clubs... How much does it cost the taxpayers to detain and question 2 individuals and run them through the system? How much will it cost the taxpayers just to process this guy for his DWI? Wouldn't it be cheaper for me to have offered, through the gov't, to pay his cab fare? Even both ways (next morning to get back to his car) would be, what, $100? That's a lot cheaper than the court time.

      Oh wait... Now I'm being bad for the economy because I'm subsidizing cabbies while taking money away from desk clerks.

      I believe that they were trying to incite the attorney who was on line

      Of course they were! And if he were worth his paycheck, he'd SUCK IT UP!

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    25. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by penix1 · · Score: 1

      "Consider: If these two fellas had cornered the lawyer in an elevator, pushed stop, and hit him up with lawyer jokes, could he still go running to the officer's skirts when the elevator door eventually opened?"

      In a word, yes. That is assuming they stopped the elevator. Wrongful imprisonment or similar comes to mind. If they touch him it becomes assault.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    26. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      They weren't talking TO him in the elevator. They're passing the jokes between each other. In fact, they don't even know he's in the elevator with them (yes, change the scenario).

      Is it still harassment?

      Read bash.org, find the racist jokes. What if you're a person of color? Is bash.org liable? I hope not. If you don't like what you hear... GROW UP AND DON'T LISTEN.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    27. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Joshua53077 · · Score: 1

      I don't like people like you...really I don't. You don't know me, nor do you my circumstances. I busted my ass through 7 years of higher education, paying my way through and mortgaging my life with loans. I earned my 3-piece through hard work, personal sacrifice and extremely long hours. You wouldn't want to trade places with me ever. My boss is psychotic, yelling things that people would never say to others in the civilized world, I have 50 divorce clients who expect me to be their shrink as well as lawyer and that want personalized attention at all times. The legal profession is not what most think it is. We work hard, 6-7 days a week and its a thank-less job. When I was harassed by these idiots, I tuned it out, simply because I have class. They don't have class if they have nothing better to do than to harass people who are just trying to make a living. Those who think lawyers are involved in some conspiracy are merely paranoid and/or delusional. Why don't you take some time from your job and spend some time in the Courts, with the dregs of society, being treated like dirt and see how you enjoy it. Walk a mile in my shoes before you attack me or my profession, buddy.

    28. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      I busted my ass through 7 years of higher education, paying my way through and mortgaging my life with loans

      So did I. I know how to suck it up.

      My boss is psychotic, yelling things that people would never say to others in the civilized world

      Do like this guy did and have him taken down for disorderly, then.

      When I was harassed by these idiots, I tuned it out, simply because I have class

      NOW you have my respect.

      They don't have class if they have nothing better to do than to harass people who are just trying to make a living

      Agreed.

      Walk a mile in my shoes before you attack me or my profession, buddy

      When did I attack your profession? My only assertion was that your colleague whom you defend needs to learn the same class that you have--the ability to tune morons like those two fellows out.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    29. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      From the mouth of teh AC comes the heart of the mater. There are some places we you are not supposed to talk. When I go to watch procedding at teh senate they tell you you are not allowed to talk. Thats just the way it is. The fredom of speach is not infinite, liek everything else it has boundries. Examples: assault, slander, inciting a riot, and you always here the one about yelling fire in a theatre (not sure what that is)

      This is another exaple of a needed limit on speech.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    30. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Would the public reaction be different if they were telling racially insensitive jokes repeatedly in front of a black person?

      Guess what? Black people are born that way. Lawyers choose to become lawyers, and should be well aware of the (low) esteem in which they are held by the general public.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    31. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by cprincipe · · Score: 1

      Wow, seven years of higher education and you're still not smart enough to avoid doing something you hate.

      --

      bun-fhuinneog agam!

    32. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > "disorderly conduct" sounds like legal bullshit to me

      That's all it is, really. "Disorderly conduct", and its siblings: "disturbing the peace", "malicious mischief", and "resisting arrest without violence", are really only there to give the pigs a justification to harass you when they take a disliking to you, but you haven't actually done anything legitimately wrong. When I was a teenager, I was arrested on one or another about half a dozen times... and wasn't ever actually prosecuted.... not even once. Lawyers may be a bit slimey, but remember, they're STILL several steps on the evolutionary ladder above the filth. And the local DA recognized that said "offenses" were only there to give them an excuse to hassle kids, and was a believer in "no harm, no foul" and "boys will be boys".

      Of course, the fact that said offenses are total bullshit won't keep you from getting arrested. Uniforms LOVE their power trips, after all. And some DAs might actually be co-conspirators with the filth themselves. So YMMV.

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    33. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Why you should try medicine sir. We studied just as hard as you, our student debt is pretty much on par with yours, our hours are just as long (if not, I daresay, longer) than yours, we also have to deal with the dregs of society - usually before they get to your courtroom (or we deal with the results of their actions - you know all those pretty pictures? We're the ones who try to turn those messes back into human beings), everyone expects us to be their shrink but what's more, were have thousands of lawyers waiting to sue our asses the first chance they get, and another arbitrary number who want to tell us HOW to practice our profession - when they don't know the first thing about medicine. Fun eh?

      If doctors can put up with the occasional lawsuit, then lawyers can put up with the occasional heckle - what other recourse is there? When are lawyers going to sue each other for malpractice? Or is your profession above mistakes?

      Someone eventually will have to control the lawyers too, this is getting ridiculously out of hand.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    34. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You wouldn't want to trade places with me ever. My boss is psychotic
      I hear McDonald's is hiring.

      We work hard, 6-7 days a week and its a thank-less job.
      Me, I'd change careers. Maybe one where people didn't make fun of you.

      Why don't you take some time from your job and spend some time in the Courts, with the dregs of society
      No thanks, I'd rather not be around lawyers.

      Walk a mile in my shoes before you attack me or my profession, buddy.
      I also make fun of telemarketers, drug dealers and mimes, but I don't wear any other their clothing. Come to think of it, telemarkets, drug dealers and mimes also make fun of lawyers.

    35. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were in line to go _into_ the building. Why should they have to be quiet there!?!?

    36. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Okay, fine, what about gays and lesbians? (Yes, I know there are arguments about whether or not it is a choice).

      What about Christians, Muslism, Buddhists? Is it okay to do the same to them? After all they chose their religion (for the most part).

      --
      What?
    37. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by penix1 · · Score: 1

      "They weren't talking TO him in the elevator. They're passing the jokes between each other. In fact, they don't even know he's in the elevator with them (yes, change the scenario).

      Is it still harassment?"

      I never said it was "harassment". Those are your words. But since you changed the scenario I'll work in the new framework....

      In the US there are laws that limit what you can and cannot say. Notable among these are libel (written) and slander (spoken). The law recognizes intent. If the intent was to slander then they can be held to account. In short, there are limits to "free speech".

      "Read bash.org, find the racist jokes. What if you're a person of color? Is bash.org liable?"

      They very well can be. It depends on the context and intent.

      "I hope not. If you don't like what you hear... GROW UP AND DON'T LISTEN."

      That's all well and good to say when YOU aren't the target of slander. Let me give you another context...

      A politician in the mid-west was running for election. His opponent had it spread that he had amorous affairs with farm animals. He spent the entire campaign defending against those aligations instead of focusing on the real issues. Consequently he lost the election. Was this slander or the exercise of free speech?

      How would you feel if you had gotten turned down for a job becuase I was outside with a bull horn yelling that you were a theif?

      Think about it...

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    38. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by GryMor · · Score: 1

      I may despise hatefull speech with regards to many things, race and religion beign but a few, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to allow others to suppress said speech. Hate is a disease, if forced into hiding it festers untill it kills. The only solution is the searing light of open speech and public scrutiny.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    39. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

      Your politician example -- poor judgement on the slandered candidate's part. It's so commonly said, you'd think every who gets into politics would know it. The best defense against slander is not to give it the time of day. If people ask, tell the truth, then get on with the job. I wouldn't want a politician who would get distracted from his job by slanderous accusations. Muckraking has been part of politics as long as politics has been around. It's not a wonderful thing, but it's part of the real world. And being able to deal with it is part of being free. Your getting turned down for a job example, I've been there. Again, it's not a wonderful thing, but it's part of being free to let other people have their opinions even when they don't want to let you have yours, and even when it means getting turned down for a job. In real life, hiring decisions are not that simple, and if the management of a company listens to rumors, it's usally not going to be a fun company to work for.

    40. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

      Dang. bit by the HTML Formatted button being below the bottom of the window again.

      Man that's hard to read.

    41. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      You know, I'd be willing to bet that the lawyer that was "offended" was some legal bigwig like a district attorney. Security guards wouldn't listen to anyone else, would they? It might have even been a judge. Judges are lawyers after all. Either way I bet it was some bigwig lawyer at the courthouse.

    42. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now, answer me this: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?

      Uh . . . in Soviet Russia, the light bulb SCREWS YOU!

      See, uh, in the U.S. the RIAA lawyers are the ones that, uh, screw you, but, like, in Soviet Russion, see, it's, like, the light bulbs, see?

      OK, yeah, OK, that's it, somethin' like that, OK, outta here . . .

    43. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
      written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.

    44. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance."
      Apparently they were refering to the people in line as 'the peasants' in comparison to the lawyers who got to skip the line 'the nobility'. Unless there were particularly stupid people in the line that day, I'd say it's unlikely that anyone there felt they were personally being insulted. It looks like a case of the Nassau courts spokesman trying to spin the incident into something more serious than it was.
    45. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be sure about this. Abortion clinics today are basically a no free speech zone due to federal law.

    46. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Write your congressman: Something has to be done about jackasses!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    47. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      The legal profession is not what most think it is. We work hard, 6-7 days a week and its a thank-less job.
      With all due respect not many people are going to thank you for charging $150-$400 an hour for getting a divorce. While I find rude boorish behavior to be reprehensible, you are seeing a symptom of the average man's frustration with the legal system.

    48. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by haystor · · Score: 1

      Let the lawyer who does not lie cast the first stone.

      --
      t
    49. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Telling a joke to by buddy while waiting in line in a public place is not creating a disterbance unless their is some other mitigating circumstance (I'm physically barring the door while telling the joke, screaming it at the tops of my lungs, etc).

      I agree completely. Neither of us know the facts of the case. Clearly, the court is accusing them of creating a disturbance. This may or may not be true. They say they didn't do it. The court says they did. Based on the various accounts, I lean towards believing the court and you lean towards believing the jackasses.

      Fair enough?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    50. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by plumby · · Score: 1
      If the state funded cab fare the same way it funds ego clubs...

      Why the hell should the state (i.e., my tax) fund cab fares for someone else that want to drink?

      How much will it cost the taxpayers just to process this guy for his DWI? Wouldn't it be cheaper for me to have offered, through the gov't, to pay his cab fare?

      What a fatuous arguement.

      For one thing, if you want to work it entirely on a cost basis, you'd have to factor in the total cost of paying for everyone that wants a taxi, not just the individual that's got caught. In my city alone, there are probably 10,000+ people out every Friday and Saturday drinking. Should we pay for the cost of getting each one a taxi (at your $100 estimate, that makes over $2,000,000 per week).

      Secondly, does your arguement apply to theft? For people that steal stuff of a value less than the cost of the court case, would it not just have been cheaper to have offered them free money if they promised not to steal?

      I'm no great lover of the legal establishment (much of the law is there to make sure that people who have power keep that power), but there are laws which are sensible, and drink-drive laws definitely fall into that category.

    51. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Monoman · · Score: 1

      The whole thing smells like a setup for a publicity stunt to me.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    52. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by nimms · · Score: 1

      so what if they've got an agenda?? highlighting the fact that situation normal is pretty fucked up and that you can be arrested for annoying lawyers is a good thing if you ask me.

    53. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I heard on the radio last night that one of them was at the courthouse on drunk driving charges.

      I also heard that they were charged with more than was mentioned in the OP, but with things like disturbing the peace, harassment, and inciting violence. (Not quite sure, but I'm sure harassment was in there).

      The discongruity alone makes me suspect as to the honesty of those that arrested these guys.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    54. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      A politician running for office is a "public person", which makes it very hard for him to win a slander suit. Reference: my high school AP US Government class, which I just completed.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    55. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The law recognizes intent. If the intent was to slander then they can be held to account. In short, there are limits to "free speech".

      Can you slander a profession? Would the profession have to take you to court, or just someone from that profession? My understanding is that slander requires the defamation (is calling a lawyer a sleazy snake defaming the lawyer, or snakes?) of a person. Insulting a person's profession in order to reflect on a specific person could be considered slander, but insulting all lawyers because you hate all lawyers isn't. Also, telling an obvious joke, even if insulting, isn't defaming. Defaming must have the ability to hurt the person when heard by others. If the case is as has been described, the people annoyed were annoyed with those speaking, not with the lawyers that were being discussed, so the statements weren't defaming anyone (not that actual defamation is necessary for slander, but if actual defamation is impossible, then slander is impossible, and if actual defamation was not present, it could be quite easily claimed that defamation was not intended.

      How would you feel if you had gotten turned down for a job because I was outside with a bull horn yelling that you were a thief?

      What does that have to do with the price of eggs? They did not single out specific lawyers by name. You are apparently doing so in your example. A better one would be something like, "How would you feel if I was outside the hospital with a bull horn saying that medical personnel are leaches on society that prey on the weak and sick?" Sure, they are annoying. Yes, they are insulting your profession. But are they slandering you? Are they breaking any law?

    56. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Well, they needed to step in because the "protestors" were assaulting people on a regular basis. If they were peacefully holding signs, that is one thing, but when they physically obstruct/assault people (and the local cops don't enforce the laws because of personal opinions about the issues involved), what do you want to have happen?

      The two choices are to restrict known criminals (and catch some non-criminals with the restrictions) or stand by and let non-criminals have their rights obstructed by criminals without protection due them under the law. The local gvts wouldn't step in, so the feds had to. If you don't like it, get the anti-choice crowd to stop assaulting people seeking reproductive counseling.

    57. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by penix1 · · Score: 1

      "Can you slander a profession?"

      To be quite honest, IANAL and all, I have no clue if you can slander a profession. I'm sure if there was a way it has been tried though and a little research should see.

      "Defaming must have the ability to hurt the person when heard by others."

      I agree with you here too...

      "What does that have to do with the price of eggs?"

      I was responding to the OP whose example DID single out one Lawyer in an elevator. He wasn't talking about this case in specific and neither was I. As for whether jokes constitute slander it depends if that joke is targeted to an individual. As I said, intent is considered in slander cases. The burden of proof is high for the plantiff but if proven then the defendant has an even tougher road. As to your hospital example, there is no intent to slander an individual in that case and 1st ammendment rights hold. It all goes back to that intent again.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    58. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit on your claim of being a lawyer. A citizen does not have to justify their presence at any hearing in a public courthouse. Unless, of course, you are also lying about living in Nassau County. Then I wonder what country you live in that the public is not allowed in the courthouse for public hearings.

    59. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      When I was a teenager, I was arrested on one or another about half a dozen times... and wasn't ever actually prosecuted.... not even once.

      That's because being arrested is supposed to be enough of a deterrent to make you think twice before doing it again. Would you prefer to have been hauled before a court and fined? Or would you whine even more about the waste of time and money?

    60. Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by deimtee · · Score: 1
      When I was a teenager, I was arrested on one or another about half a dozen times... and wasn't ever actually prosecuted.... not even once.

      That's because being arrested is supposed to be enough of a deterrent to make you think twice before doing it again. Would you prefer to have been hauled before a court and fined? Or would you whine even more about the waste of time and money?


      Going to court is supposed to be the whole point of an arrest.
      If you start using the arrest itself as a deterrent what happens when it doesn't work - do you allow police officers to kick the shit out of people "as a deterrent" because they weren't scared of being arrested?
      What you are doing is giving the police the power to punish. This is wrong.
      Their job is to apprehend, it is up to the court system to decide guilt and assign punishment. Allowing these functions to be given to the police results in what is called "A Police State". This is considered a bad thing.
      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  3. Some Jokes by larry2k · · Score: 2, Funny
    Q: What do you say to a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
    A: Good morning, Your Honor.

    Q: How do you tell if a lawyer is lying?
    A: His lips are moving.

    Q: Why do they bury lawyers 100 feet into the ground?
    A: Because down deep, they're good people.

    Q: What's the difference between a vulture and a lawyer?
    A: Wing tips

    This First Post has an order bug

    --

    The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X

    1. Re:Some Jokes by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

      A: A doberman.

    2. Re:Some Jokes by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      So you're trapped in a room with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and a lawyer. Luckily, being a good American second amendment nut, you have your trusty pistol with you. But you look in the chamber and realize you only have two bullets!! Quick -- what do you do?

      ANSWER: Shoot the lawyer twice.

    3. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you keep a lawyer from drowning?
      Take your foot off his head.

    4. Re:Some Jokes by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Q: How do you tell if a lawyer is lying?
      A: His lips are moving.


      Isn't this the joke those two got arrested for? I read it somewhere but can't find it now...

    5. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Q: What's red and orange and looks good on a lawyer?

      A: Fire.

    6. Re:Some Jokes by Dorsai65 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Q: How is a lawyer like a whore?
      A: For the right money, either one will assume any position.

      Q: Why do lawyers wear such tight collars?
      A: So the foreskin doesn't show.

      Q: What do you give a lawyer before he goes swimming?
      A: An anchor.

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    7. Re:Some Jokes by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      How can they be arrested for telling the truth?

    8. Re:Some Jokes by TFGeditor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Q: What do you call 10,000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?
      A: A good start.

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    9. Re:Some Jokes by nxtr · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the joke those two got arrested for? I read it somewhere but can't find it now...

      Yea, it's in the article...

    10. Re:Some Jokes by z-man · · Score: 1

      Q: What is the difference between a dead dog and a dead lawyer in the road.
      A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.

    11. Re:Some Jokes by larry2k · · Score: 1

      If you are stranded in an elevator with Adolph Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and a lawyer, and you have a gun with only two bullets, what do you do? Shoot the lawyer... twice

      --

      The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X

    12. Re:Some Jokes by schnitzi · · Score: 1

      Q. What's the difference between a rooster and a lawyer?

      A. The rooster clucks defiance.

      --



      I object to that article, and to the next reply.
    13. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: What do a lawyer and a sperm have in common?

      A: 1 in a million turns out to be a human being.

    14. Re:Some Jokes by Peyna · · Score: 1

      The first one is humorous; of course the reality is that most lawyers have an IQ in the same range as doctors; 120-130 or so.

      --
      What?
    15. Re:Some Jokes by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Q: What's the difference between a bucket of manure and a lawyer?
      A: The bucket

      It was so cold today I saw a lawyer with his hands in his _own_ pockets.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    16. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most lawyers will tell you that most judges, at least in states where the judges are elected, aren't necessarily the most brilliant lawyers. But IANAL.

    17. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why do lawyers wear neckties?

      To keep the foreskin from slipping up over their face.

    18. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Bush has proved that appointed judges aren't the most brilliant lawyers either. Yay.

    19. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found it amusing that this was modded off topic. And perhaps it is off topic, but it does point out something.

      Why is it not acceptable to tell jokes about black people, yet lawyer jokes are OK? Both disparage and humiliate a group of people for little better reason than "I don't like them".

    20. Re:Some Jokes by sharkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
      A: One's a scum-sucking bottom-dweller, and the other is a fish.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    21. Re:Some Jokes by damiam · · Score: 1
      Q: How is a lawyer like a whore?
      A: For the right money, either one will assume any position.

      I always heard that one as "There are some things a whore won't do for money."

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    22. Re:Some Jokes by peasleer · · Score: 1

      Q: What happens when you give a lawyer viagra? A: He gets taller.

      --
      Mythos : Logos :: Slashdot : Intelligence
    23. Re:Some Jokes by apenzott · · Score: 1

      Judge: A lawyer who has been benched.

      --
      The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
    24. Re:Some Jokes by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Q. What do lawyers use for contraceptives?
      A. Their personalities.

    25. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foremost is probably GP's use of the n-word, which is extremely taboo and only serves to shock the reader. The other big reason is that, unlike with black people, there really are many good reasons to dislike lawyers - they're often dishonest, they'll do anything a client asks, disclaiming responsibility when, as is often the case, they're doing a bad thing; the system they are a part of generally sucks and is a huge drain on society, sucking the innovation and life out of each industry it touches, and worst of all, they CHOOSE to be a part of it. In contrast to black people, and especially in the eyes of Slashdotters and in the context of this story, THEY DESERVE IT!

    26. Re:Some Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a box full of shit.

      A: The box.

    27. Re:Some Jokes by plover · · Score: 2, Funny
      Q: What do you have if you have a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?
      A: Not enough sand.

      Q: Why don't sharks attack lawyers?
      A: Professional courtesy.

      --
      John
    28. Re:Some Jokes by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Funny

      Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit?

      A: A bucket.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    29. Re:Some Jokes by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Q: What's a 20000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
      A: A good start.

    30. Re:Some Jokes by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      I found it amusing that this was modded off topic....

      Why is it not acceptable to tell jokes about black people, yet lawyer jokes are OK?

      Maybe because the topic of this story is lawyer jokes, not n*-jokes.

    31. Re:Some Jokes by russx2 · · Score: 1

      Why is it not acceptable to tell jokes about black people, yet lawyer jokes are OK? Both disparage and humiliate a group of people for little better reason than "I don't like them".

      Well, rather obviously, it's because one is discriminating against a group of people for how they are physically - and therefore holds no basis. Whereas being a lawyer is a choice - a career. Alright there are still good lawyers (so the rumors go), but, by and large by their nature, in general they're scum ;-)

    32. Re:Some Jokes by wildwood · · Score: 1

      Q: What do you call 50 parachuting lawyers?

      A: Skeet!

      --
      normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
  4. yikes... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    ...someone better explain to them what IANAL means before they start the sodomy lawsuits...

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:yikes... by Fire+Dragon · · Score: 1

      someone better explain to them what IANAL

      It is used on posts about legal stuff so that other people will get you seriously.

    2. Re:yikes... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      ...someone better explain to them what IANAL means before they start the sodomy lawsuits...

      Reminds me of an old joke:

      An anxious woman goes to her doctor.
      "Doctor," she asks nervously, "can you get pregnant from anal intercourse?"
      "Certainly," replies the doctor, "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
  5. so... by undernourished · · Score: 0

    i wonder if they told the obligitory first post joke?

  6. Arrested for disorderly conduct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not lawyer jokes.

    1. Re:Arrested for disorderly conduct by penginkun · · Score: 1

      The reason the laywer made the complaint of DC was because they were telling lawyer jokes and wouldn't shut up. So they WERE arrested for telling lawyer jokes.

      There is no indication that they were causing any kind of disturbance. This case will revolve on the testamony of the people in line with them.

  7. Did you hear the one about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the slashdot thread where everyone shares their favorite lawyer jokes?

  8. Subversion of the Constitution by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

    Lawyers and the courts have been subverting the constitution for years. This is just another example of it. Not surprising, especially given that their own kind was attacked.

  9. The summary leaves something out: by Xshare · · Score: 5, Informative

    These guys weren't randomly standing in line telling lawyer jokes. They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.

    The pair said that for years they have stood outside courthouses on Long Island and mocked lawyers. The summary appears to inflame, when it shouldn't.

    1. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yiakiks!

    2. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      But they they really interfere int he operation of the court or were they just being obnoxious?

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    3. Re:The summary leaves something out: by trawg · · Score: 5, Funny
      The summary appears to inflame, when it shouldn't.
      Welcome to slashdot!
    4. Re:The summary leaves something out: by coopaq · · Score: 1
      The summary appears to inflame, when it shouldn't.

      The plane is going down. Inside is a Doctor, a Lawyer and CowboyNeal.

      Who survives the crash?

    5. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.
      I still don't see the problem.

    6. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      In other words, they aren't just innocent victims. They're heros!

    7. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who knows? But given that:

      a) What kind of nut regularly goes to the courthouse and heckles lawyers as a hobby?

      b) They've spun this story as "Arrested for telling lawyer jokes!"

      I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the judge, not to them.

    8. Re:The summary leaves something out: by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      You could argue that by making lawyers feel angry and hurt you're affecting their performance or reptuation. What we're talking about is "SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel."

      A lot of lawyers are really sensitive about that kind of thing. Hell, I'd be pissed off if people thought less of me for going through a very competitive graduate program and working 120 hour weeks. People are convicted of libel and slander for insulting organizations, ethnic minorites, etc. Why should this apply to one group and not another?

    9. Re:The summary leaves something out: by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      These guys weren't randomly standing in line telling lawyer jokes. They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers. The pair said that for years they have stood outside courthouses on Long Island and mocked lawyers.

      I have a hard time imagining how that would be illegal. It is not illegal to be an asshole. The only difference here is that they were in line for the metal detectors. Now, if they were purposely preventing people from getting through said detectors there may be a point, but it is hard to tell exactly what happened.

      I guess that is a question for the courts to determine, I just hope they get a fair trial. It is going to be hard to find an impartial judge since they are all lawyers.

    10. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      First one, then the other.

    11. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      i am just wishing there was some more detail about what happened.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    12. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      Is it really slander or libel if they are not telling lies about a specific person? I figure if i can deal with the stupid jokes about being a computer geek, they should be able to deal with the lawyer jokes. I have no problem if they were truly obstructing the court's function, but th earticle isn't that definate on it.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    13. Re:The summary leaves something out: by neura · · Score: 1

      Please mod this funny! FUNNY: (5) :D :D :D

    14. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Slander is something false that's spoken in an attempt to pass it off as fact. Jokes can in no way be considered slanderous.

      People are not convicted of slander for insulting others, they are convicted of slander for lying about others. There are many differences between the two terms.

      I would be interested in learning of any miscarriages of justice where someone was convicted of being insulting toward a particular group (other than actually inside an operating court room) though, so do share if you know of any specific instances where it's actually happened.

    15. Re:The summary leaves something out: by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      They were talking to a specific person, it was a specific person who levied the charges.

      I just saw these two guys interviewed on MSNBC not a couple of hours ago. I missed the beginning of the interview, but it gradually became clear to me that they were there to cause shit, and found it.

      They were all blathering about the fact that the cops wouldn't take them to the lawyer who levied the charges, as if that violated their "right to face their accuser", which AFAIK doesn't mean you get to get up in the guys face at the time of your arrest.

      They came off like a couple of assholes, frankly. As much as I'd love to see this as a huge black eye to the joke of a legal system we have, I can't.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    16. Re:The summary leaves something out: by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      In fact, the US Constitution guarantees the right to parody as a freedom of speech, as long as it's clearly parody and cannot be mistaken as slander or libel. (AFAIK)

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    17. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but in so far as the jokes are taken seriously, they're also widely considered to have a significant, if not literal, basis in fact.

    18. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely they'll get a trial. Most states have a minimum threshold of punishment to allow someone a trial by jury. It's a direct violation of the Constitution, but it happens all the time. If said violation is punishable by less than x dollars and y days in jail, no jury trial is allowed. They get around it by saying it's neither a criminal nor civil action.

      Welcome to the USA. Papers please. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer.

    19. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      Maybe i need to reread the article, but i thought the person who pressed charges, just heard them and was offended. Even if they were talking to him directly, unless they were talking ABOUT him and tried to make what ever they were saying sound factual, it's still not slander. it's just being an ass. I've told Engineer Jokes to Engineers... should that count as Slander? When it boils down to it, the real deal comes on whether or not they were disrupting th ecourts function or not, which the article isn't as clear on as i would have liked.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    20. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) A couple of retired guys with a caustic sense of humor and a particular dislike of lawyers (which isn't all that particular). Oh, and "Duh."

      b) That's what happened. Has anyone been on the news saying that these ald ruffians were menecing people? Forcibly preventing their entry into the court house? No, they were taking the wind out of sails, that didn't really deserve any wind in the first place. And that's now illegal. Quite the identity change for our nation.

      Benefit of the doubt to the judge? Oh. I thought this was America. I could have sworn, there was this saying. What was it. Innocent until proven guilty? How about, since things have traveled so far off track, I just accuse all lawyers of murder so we can just presume their guilt, kill them and get back on track.

    21. Re:The summary leaves something out: by khallow · · Score: 1
      Hell, I'd be pissed off if people thought less of me for going through a very competitive graduate program and working 120 hour weeks. People are convicted of libel and slander for insulting organizations, ethnic minorites, etc. Why should this apply to one group and not another?

      What products do they make? What value do they add to society? Thing is a lot of those people are rent-seekers. They don't make anything but parasitize those who do.

    22. Re:The summary leaves something out: by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but these guys show up every single day. They do this for a living.

      Imagine some asshole outside the door to your place of work, making jokes about you every single day.

      That type of shit has an effect. Teenagers commit suicide when they're treated like that at school.

      I don't buy freedom of speech here.

      . I've told Engineer Jokes to Engineers... should that count as Slander?

      I don't know, it would be up to a judge and jury to decide. What if I was telling Jew jokes in front of a Synagogue? What if I was telling black jokes? Is that my freedom of speech?

      Can I go to the elementary school and stand at the chain link fence and scream racial epiphets at minority kindergarteners? Freedom of speech, right? Ok, not racial, sexual, or even vulgar. I'll just stand there screaming at kids.

      What the fuck ever. I'm sick of this lefty redefinition of freedom of speech. You're free to say whatever you want, but not WHEREVER and HOWEVER.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    23. Re:The summary leaves something out: by StalinJoe · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but we are *NOT* talking about slander! They were arrested for disorderly conduct.

      RTFA.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
    24. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Detritus · · Score: 1
      People are convicted of libel and slander for insulting organizations, ethnic minorites, etc. Why should this apply to one group and not another?

      Insulting someone is not slander, and people are not "convicted" of anything in civil court. Insulting an organization or minority group is not a crime, or a civil matter.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel.

      If I say "Bob is an asshole and a drooling idiot.", that's protected speech. If I say "Bob is a child molester and beats his wife.", then Bob may have grounds to sue for slander, assuming that the statements are false.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    25. Re:The summary leaves something out: by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Funny
      They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.

      A noble cause. But, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished!

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    26. Re:The summary leaves something out: by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Actually, IIRC one of them had official business at the courthouse at the time. The other may have drove him there. The other times they were just outside exercising their right to protest the state of the legal system.

    27. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Peyna · · Score: 1

      But, if you're in a crowd of people that are trying to get into a building and by repeatedly calling Bob an "asshole" and "drooling idiot" you are causing unrest and a potentially dangerous situation for Bob, then yes you can be arrested.

      --
      What?
    28. Re:The summary leaves something out: by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Welcome to the USA. Papers please. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer.

      Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    29. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Actually... they are martyrs.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    30. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be irritating, but do i have a legal right to have him arrested if his only offense was making jokes about me?

      I don't know, it would be up to a judge and jury to decide.
      you're f'n kidding me right? As far as i understand it, slander, is when i tell lies about a person. A stupid joke is not a lie. As for the racist remarks.. chances are you'll get your ass beat... and deservedly so. Either way, it's NOT slander... they didn't get arrested for slander.

      All i am saying is that the got arrested for disrupting th ecourts, but th earticle makes it sound like they didn't really disrupt the court... just offended some lawyer. Sorry.. but that's not against the law. Heck... i could even call the president a moron if i wanted to, it's not illegal.

      What the fuck ever. I'm sick of this lefty redefinition of freedom of speech. You're free to say whatever you want, but not WHEREVER and HOWEVER.
      This is the part i find funny, cause i could have sworn i was taking this more form the rightist point of view of, "i'm sick and tired of people taking political correctness too far. people just need to get thicker skin sometimes."

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    31. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Arngautr · · Score: 1

      I think it was drunk driving which caused one of them to be in line.

    32. Re:The summary leaves something out: by shitdrummer · · Score: 1

      These guys weren't randomly standing in line telling lawyer jokes. They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.

      So What? What's wrong with that? I am constantly amazed at the number of restrictions on citizens in the "Land of the Free".

      You need a permit to assemble in relatively small groups, can be arrested for telling a joke, arrested for handing out how-to-vote cards.

      So what if you have a constitution. If you can be arrested for disturbing the peace just for telling a joke then your constitution is useless and America is in serious trouble.

      But I guess as long as you still have the right to bear arms then everything's ok, right?

      Shitdrummer.

    33. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Tassach · · Score: 1
      a) What kind of nut regularly goes to the courthouse and heckles lawyers as a hobby?
      The same kind of nut who doesn't go to the back of the bus when ordered to.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    34. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Detritus · · Score: 1

      See "Heckler's Veto" and Disorderly Conduct by Whom?, an essay on the subject by Nat Hentoff.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    35. Re:The summary leaves something out: by malfunct · · Score: 1

      Not that it has anything to do with the arrest, because if those guys truely were a disturbance they might have deserved what they got, but you did hit a nail on the head. In so much as many lawyers spend time and resources defending acts that are in themselves economically wasteful (theft ect does not create anything, only uses up time and effort that could have been used to create something else) they further the waste. That said in some way they will always be necessary because I don't have the skill to defend myself in court when the defense really is warrented. Its one of those careful balancing acts that I think has swung to far in a destructive way.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    36. Re:The summary leaves something out: by benna · · Score: 1

      This was the original purpose of the right to bear arms. Let's rise up!

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    37. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They get around it by saying it's neither a criminal nor civil action.
      Around here (California) they call those "infractions". And when you're charged with an infraction, you are not permitted some of the legal rights you would have if you were charged with a misdemeanor or felony.
    38. Re:The summary leaves something out: by nomadic · · Score: 1

      What products do they make? What value do they add to society? Thing is a lot of those people are rent-seekers. They don't make anything but parasitize those who do.

      What exactly do YOU produce now? Unless you're a farmer, a tailor, or work in a factory you probably shouldn't throw stones.

    39. Re:The summary leaves something out: by damiam · · Score: 1

      No, not really. I see no parallel between the civil rights movement and the right to spend your life disrupting crowds at courthouses. Would you care to point out the connection?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    40. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Peyna · · Score: 1

      From New York Penal Law:

      "A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

      1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

      2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

      3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

      4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

      5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

      6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

      7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

      Disorderly conduct is a violation."

      So, I think #3 pretty clearly applies to them, but I haven't taken the time to research any court decisions regarding the application of that section.

      --
      What?
    41. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These guys weren't randomly standing in line telling lawyer jokes. They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.

      Hopefully I can find something equally productive to do when I retire.

    42. Re:The summary leaves something out: by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      I think that we can dismiss the legitimacy of "disorderly conduct" based upon the fact that, due to subjective interpretation, anything can be an "unreasonable noise". It's not a matter of the noise, it's a matter of how many people disagree with you. As for 3. "Abusive or obscene language" is also completely subjective. Jokes, as in beauty, are in the ear (eye) of the beholder (belistener).

      So spare me the dictionary and come back to reality.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    43. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Not in this day and age. The current readings of the Constitution ignore the 9th and 10th amendments. Instead of the Constitution granting government specifically enumerated powers and leaving everything else to the people, it is read to grant specific rights to people and leaving everything else to the government.

      Since there is no clearly enumerated right to parody, it won't be long until such right no longer exists. There is a perceived lack of many rights, even though all powers not expressly granted the government are retained by the states and people through the 9th and 10th amendments.

      Welcome to the USA. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer, baby.

    44. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Nun, Volk, steh auf, und Sturm, brich los!

    45. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Actually "unreasonable noise," is pretty much objective. You get a jury to determine whether or not the amount of noise was that which a reasonable person would not tolerate. It's as objective as most things in a courtroom can be.

      "Abusive of obscene language," has likely been narrowly construed by the New York courts. If I didn't have so much to do for class tomorrow, I might bother finding more information for you.

      The "dictionary" is rarely a controlling factor in determining the meaning of a statute.

      --
      What?
    46. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These guys weren't randomly standing in line telling lawyer jokes. They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.

      So what? These guys believe in something, and are using a peaceful means to stand up for that cause. They are not harming anyone, risking lives, or the public's well being. Sure, it's disruptive and some people won't like it. But that's why we HAVE the First Amendment! So that government can't shut you up if you happen to say something they don't like. Martin Luther King Jr, et al were very disruptive and said things that many, many people did not like hearing. But it was well within their First Amendment right to do so. On the grand scale of things, I know that MLK's cause and these guys' cause have little resemblance, but the core issue is the same.

    47. Re:The summary leaves something out: by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      You get a jury

      Jury selection is hardly objective. As pointed out in earlier posts, this case will probably never make it to jury trial. It's a case of,"We know it's prohibitively expensive to fight the ticket--they'll pay and be on their way."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    48. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above post is false. They were there on court business. Specifically, to answer a DWI charge.

    49. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      When you have your heart attack come and visit me, and I will show you the value of what _I_ produce. What's an extra couple of years of life worth to you?

      Oh, but I don't work in a factory, nor am I a farmer or tailor...

      And yet according to the lawyers, if I make one mistake, my entire liveleyhood is "up for grabs". But who sues the lawyers when THEY screw up? And everyone screws up - to err is human...

      Talk about a double standard.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    50. Re:The summary leaves something out: by nomadic · · Score: 1

      And yet according to the lawyers, if I make one mistake, my entire liveleyhood is "up for grabs".

      That's what "insurance" is for. Look into it.

      But who sues the lawyers when THEY screw up? And everyone screws up - to err is human...

      The people who are damaged by their screwing up. You didn't think lawyers couldn't be sued for malpractice, did you? Happens a lot.

    51. Re:The summary leaves something out: by blackdropbear · · Score: 1

      Why give the benefit of the doubt to the Judge? He's a lawyer too. There is no chance they will get a fair trial, and besides they were targeting lawyers and should get a medal for doing so.

    52. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be right. Lawyers have heard ALL the Lawyer jokes, cop jokes and most doctor jokes. Only the cops are overly sensitive. Telling the jokes in bad Latin with mis-pronounced greek names, DOES rattle em - or get you a free half hour latin tutorial.

    53. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Heck... i could even call the president a moron if i wanted to, it's not illegal.

      But strangely enough it is illegal to say that he deserves to be shot or fed a pretzel ;-)

    54. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

      Does that mean that pfarting is illegal in New York? And what about overly loud sneezing?

    55. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      You get a jury to determine whether or not the amount of noise was that which a reasonable person would not tolerate. It's as objective as most things in a courtroom can be.

      It would be, if the jury was composed of reasonable people. Or just a random sample of the population, for that matter.

      But that's unfortunately not how the system works: before the actual trial, the lawyers will have made sure that anybody who thinks that the sound of telling a lawyer joke is a reasonable noise will have been removed from the jury.

    56. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My uncle, who was a solicitor before he retired, enjoys lawyer jokes enormously. Of course, he's Australian ...

    57. Re:The summary leaves something out: by beforewisdom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      These guys weren't randomly standing in line telling lawyer jokes. They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers.
      Yes, but the article and the authorities left out HOW these guys were violating anyone's rights or interfering with the operation of the court..........the justification for arresting them.

      They got arrested for the very thing they are fighting against.....authorities bending the law and truncating people's rights to their own ends.

      They weren't preventing anyone from using the court

      What they did do was personally offend a lawyer and perhaps a judge.

      However, the first amendment doesn't care about offending people. KKK & neo-nazi marches are allowed in Jewish neighborhoods.

      The only difference here is that the people who took personal offense had the opportunity to abuse their power.......which these guys, as their goal..successfully pointed out.

    58. Re:The summary leaves something out: by Tassach · · Score: 1
      You see no difference between standing up for your right to exercise your freedom of speech, and standing up for your right to be treated like a human being? I feel sorry for you.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    59. Re:The summary leaves something out: by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I see no parallel between the civil rights movement and the right to spend your life disrupting crowds at courthouses. Would you care to point out the connection?

      Standing up to a perceived unjustice. Or do you think that people should only stand up for themselves if you think the cause is worthy?

    60. Re:The summary leaves something out: by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What we're talking about is "SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel."

      Since they were defaming a profession, and not a person, they don't fit your definition.

    61. Re:The summary leaves something out: by khallow · · Score: 1
      What exactly do YOU produce now?

      Easy to answer. Over time, I've produced fast food, x-ray film, computer code, and more educated and skilled workers. Currently, I'm working in the UC Davis factory which produces roughly 5000-10,000 college graduates each year.

    62. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      well yeah, but i can accept that since that could amount to terroristic threatening.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    63. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      well yeah, but i can accept that since that could amount to terroristic threatening.

      Offering a pretzel to the President is considered a terroristic treat? Gosh, what is the world coming to!

    64. Re:The summary leaves something out: by ryusen · · Score: 1

      ooops.. i missread that part as fed into a pretzel... ooops...

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    65. Re:The summary leaves something out: by khallow · · Score: 1
      That's what "insurance" is for. Look into it.

      Anyone who practices medicine probably has a pretty good understanding of malpractice insurance. But here's the point. Insurance isn't magical. You have to pay to get insurance. The less coverage you need the cheaper it is.

      Medical care is one of the cases where liability costs make up a significant portion of the cost of the product. Another is ladders. Look into it.

    66. Re:The summary leaves something out: by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Anyone who practices medicine probably has a pretty good understanding of malpractice insurance.

      Unfortunately not true at all. Doctors have a tendency to think that because they know one field they know everything.

      Medical care is one of the cases where liability costs make up a significant portion of the cost of the product. Another is ladders. Look into it.

      This is a big scam the insurance companies have gotten you and a lot of other people into believing. The facts are that those states that have caps on malpractice payouts tend to have higher insurance rates, Rates have skyrocketed in recent years, but the amount of malpractice litigation has stayed flat, and the average amount of payout has increased only slightly. But it's easier for the insurance companies to just blame the lawyers than to actually open their books and reveal just where the increased money has gone.

    67. Re:The summary leaves something out: by khallow · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately not true at all. Doctors have a tendency to think that because they know one field they know everything.

      I'm not going to debate that. My point though is that doctors have to buy malpractice insurance so that gives them some experience and understanding with it. A "pretty good understanding" though? Maybe I went too far.

      This is a big scam the insurance companies have gotten you and a lot of other people into believing. The facts are that those states that have caps on malpractice payouts tend to have higher insurance rates, Rates have skyrocketed in recent years, but the amount of malpractice litigation has stayed flat, and the average amount of payout has increased only slightly. But it's easier for the insurance companies to just blame the lawyers than to actually open their books and reveal just where the increased money has gone.

      This sounds vaguely familiar like I've seen this argument before. Maybe the insurance industry has rigged the whole medical malpractice/liability laws so that insurance is hugely expensive. However, doctors and businesses can and do shop around. If that kind of insurance is so expensive compared to the actual payout, then you got to wonder who's buying it and why isn't anyone selling it cheaper and undercutting the big fish?

      Also, why should the profits, obscene or otherwise of insurance companies be open to public view unless of course, the company is a publically traded corporation?

  10. It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you hate lawyers, you're an obvious terrorist.

  11. I was in the line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was getting ready to make another lawyer joke, but luckily some guy from Hong Kong started downloading DareDevil via BitTorrent on my laptop, so I got distracted and that apparently saved me.

    1. Re:I was in the line by julie-h · · Score: 1

      I were there too. He uploaded, not downloaded =)

      Perhaps this will come on /. ? =)

  12. Your rights ONLINE?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the HELL does this have to do with ONLINE? Is this just Your Rights Being Threatened Via Our Fearmongering?

    Soon we'll all be seeing news stories on here about things we must do "or the terrorists will have won".

  13. Here's a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot Editors!

    (Psst... make a "Law" category rather than stuff everything into YRO.)

    1. Re:Here's a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia, editors post you!

    2. Re:Here's a joke by kenthorvath · · Score: 1

      Your Rights On Line vs. Online - haha I get it!

    3. Re:Here's a joke by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      I've suggested this already here.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  14. You can twist this situation anyway you like it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sure it may sound bad this way... But I am sure the two guys went overboard somewhere... They did not simply offend one judge/lawyer/whatever and poof, was off to jail...

    This is one situation where I am sure you had to be there to know really what happened, since there is probably two stories to this one, the one doing the arresting, and the ones being arrested...

  15. It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by solafide · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Rude, uncivil, etc. Why were they there anyway? Learn your manners and respect other peoples opinions! Especially in front of the lawyer - how dumb was that?

    Sorry for the rant, but what fool calls lawyers names to their faces?
    Billy

    1. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Christ. Think about that for a second. Lawyers are not gods. They are almost certainly NOT better people than you. I have no difficulty telling a lawyer that I'll assume she's a conniving bitch until she proves otherwise - you shouldn't either. The article is right on the money - lawyers want to control you, and with your attitude, you're letting them. The burgeoning lawyerocracy will have to be stopped fairly soon. Pick a set of ethical guidelines and live by them. Don't confuse what is legal and what is right. Above all, don't elevate lawyers to new nobility.

    2. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "guts". You keep on slinking around and calling names when people can't hear, you obviously don't understand the concept.

    3. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by DoraLives · · Score: 1
      Submit.

      Obey.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    4. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Out of towner: Is Long Island the place where lawyers rule supreme?

    5. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by SydneyAgent20 · · Score: 1

      Yeah i totally agree. you cant just stand there and insult somebody to their face and expect them not to take action.I mean what would you do if some random person came up to you and started hassling you for what you do for a living,obviously you would get offended and do something about it.Since being lawyers they did what they naturally do and sue them and get satisfaction i would have done the same.I say good on them.

    6. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      I think they're called judges.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    7. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      you cant just stand there and insult somebody to their face and expect them not to take action

      My boss did it for 4 years. Who's standing up for my rights?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    8. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Right-O! I, for one, welcome our new litigious overlords.

    9. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by shitdrummer · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the rant, but what fool calls lawyers names to their faces?

      A free citizen in a free country.

      Shitdrummer.

    10. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny
      Learn your manners and respect other peoples opinions!

      Instead of having them arrested for telling jokes!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    11. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by ShinGouki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we're not outraged because a lawyer got offended and took action. we're outraged that our legal system allows people to be detained, searched, handcuffed, and arrested because SOMEONE ELSE DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAID.

      as Beatrice Hall once said "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

      --
      -dk
      Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
    12. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by shredluc · · Score: 1

      Who's the bigger fool - the fools calling them names or the fools standing in the background scared?

    13. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by reverius · · Score: 1

      I'm from Long Island, and I could have swore it's the place where rude people rule supreme... but apparently not today. :(

    14. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anti_zeitgeist · · Score: 1

      this coming from the perosn posting AC

      --
      If it wasn't for C, we would be stuck using BASI, PASAL and OBOL.
    15. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      I have no difficulty telling a lawyer that I'll assume she's a conniving bitch until she proves otherwise

      Let me guess, she agreed to pay your way through medical school as soon as she graduated, right?

    16. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by SydneyAgent20 · · Score: 1

      Mate you are the 1 who should stand up for your own rights because noone else will do it for you. If someone abuses me or insults me i stand up for myself so they know not to do it again.No1 else will stick up for you so do it yourself.

    17. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by miu · · Score: 1
      Sorry for the rant, but what fool calls lawyers names to their faces?

      Lawyers are citizens of the US. In a court while participating in legal proceedings they have some special privileges, in any other circumstance they are completely normal citizens. Why should a "fool" fear to tell a lawyer that they think that their entire profession is made up of conniving jackals?

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    18. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Boiner · · Score: 1

      what fool calls lawyers names to their faces

      Umm.. My father-in-law!

      When being re-acquainted with his daughter's childhood friend who just passed the bar he said (right to her face), "Gee, I always hoped you'd at least grow up to be a child molester."

      Classic party stopper...

    19. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They weren't talking to lawyers. They were talking to each other. Their point was that people censor themselves like timid peasants because they know it is foolish to incur the wrath of the lawyers. It wouldn't be foolish to incur their wrath if they were powerless to do anything to a couple of codgers telling lawyer jokes. By baiting the lawyers to act, the codger's proved their point. Lawyers use their status to keep people down.

      And outside a courtroom is a place where people often find themselves just after being screwed over by lawyers. It is the sort of place a couple of people might start telling lawyer jokes to let off some steam. The first amendment says they have the right to do so, and to ignore a whiny bitch lawyer who might point out that he is offended.

    20. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Lawyers have the ability to convince someone to tell the goons to take you away. They may be wrong, but they know the right big-words to say to the right people to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion. And when in doubt - take 'em away, throw 'em in the drunk tank, and defuse the situation no matter who is right. If their arrest was wrong then the judge can sort it out later.

      Lawyers have the power to sick the system on you. It's like a +1 spell of entanglement, or ranged spiderweb weapon. It does no damage, but can slow you down and inconvenience you for a while.

    21. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is naive.

    22. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by deblau · · Score: 1
      Lawyers don't want to control you, they just want to take your money. Like every other service worker. Don't confuse reality with paranoid conspiracy theories.

      BTW, I'm posting this under my user account, not anonymously, and I'm assuming you're a coward until you prove otherwise.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    23. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi there, little Billy!

      Fuck you, you scumbag asshole motherfucking piece of shit. You should fucking kill yourself for the greater good. The world would be a better place without cock-sucking self-righteous assholes like you. Fuck you to hell, you little bitch.

      what fool calls lawyers names to their faces?

      No FOOL would do that, just corageous, intelligent people who think the truth is important and are willing to stand up for it. The fool let's himself get screwed over by those faggot asshole lawyers dickheads. Fuck you, fuck the lawyers, and may Satan truly bless these guys who are going to jail for their words.

      You are the most offensive human alive. I hope you choke on your own shit and die.

      Learn your manners and respect other peoples opinions!

      You first, you hypocritical dickhead.

    24. Re:It's Long Island - what do you expect??? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > if some random person came up to you and started hassling you for what you do for a living,obviously you would get offended and do something about it.

      Yes I would. However, because I am not a lawyer I would not have the option of having them illegally jailed. The job of a lawyer is SUPPOSED to be to defend a person's rights. He should know better than anyone that what these guys were doing was NOT illegal. He should be disbarred.

  16. Okay, so? by Sialagogue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By "they were arrested for telling lawyer jokes" you mean "they were arrested for 'being abusive and disturbing the peace'"

    I was going to try to make some articulate argument about the scope of First Amendment rights as it applies to public places and the social contract, but I'll just sum it up like this:

    Two retards act like dicks and get busted for it, and all of a sudden I have to read about it on Slashdot?

    --
    The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
    1. Re:Okay, so? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      they were arrested for 'being abusive and disturbing the peace'

      You're just like that guy at the pub. The guy with the really obnoxious cigar. It smells like morning butt-cake. He's well within his rights to smoke it at the pub, though. What can I do? If I walk up to him and ask him politely to put out the cigar, and he does, he's going to nurture resentment for me. If I walk up to him and politely ask him to put out the cigar, and he defends his right to smoke it, then I've just wasted my time. If I walk up to him and politely ask him to put out the cigar, and he tells me to get bent, then the situation is going to get ugly. If I walk up to him and tell him to stuff his cigar in his hind end then it's going to get ugly real quick.

      So... direct confrontation is ruled out because it will either be resentful, ineffective, or ugly.

      I could sit across the bar and heckle the concept of a cigar while chatting with my drinking pals. That could be construed as "abusive and disturbing the peace", depending upon how clear I make it that his cigar smells like morning butt-cake. I could move to a different section of the bar where I won't smell his cigar, but then he's going to be resentful because it will be a public action which indicates that his cigar smells like butt.

      So drop the "abusive and disturbing the peace" bit. Tell the lawyer to suck it up. Everyone has crap to deal with in life, and he's no different.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Okay, so? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Did you even RTFA? They were arrested for being abusive towards lawyers.

      The constitution only grants rights and protections to human beings.

    3. Re:Okay, so? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's the fact that before being ARRESTED perhaps they could have been asked to refrain from their behaviour, or shown the doorway and told to come back when they felt a little less talkative.

      Shooting them dead would also have shut them up, but it would also have been perhaps a tad excessive.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Okay, so? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      told to come back when they felt a little less talkative.

      To piggyback off of an idea put up by someone else...

      Police Officer: "Mr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?"
      MLK,Jr.: "Yes, sir?"
      PO: "Can you please come back when you feel less talkative?"
      MLK,Jr.: "I have a dream..."

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    5. Re:Okay, so? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's news: two down, several hundred million to go...

    6. Re:Okay, so? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      You are calling people "retards" and making fun of them in a public forum. Perhaps we should bust you?

      Why is it OK for you to make fun of people in public, but not OK for them to make fun of people in public?

      Just because you might love the government and the law, doesn't mean that other people aren't entitled to question it.

    7. Re:Okay, so? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      did you rtfa?

      They were making jokes in line, the other people(not the meatbag lawyer) were laughing and enjoying it.
      Hardly abusive or disturbing the peace.

      If they were screaming, or pushing or trying to insight a riot, then you owuld hav a point. If the yelled fire or said they were going top dhoot someone, then yeah you would have a point.

      They were telling jokes soemone didn't like, and that someone through them in jail for it.

      This Is Wrong.

      Now you have a point about this being on slashdot, however.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Tell your most offensive lawyer joke by Rai · · Score: 5, Funny

    I saw this story on Fark and for spite, everyone told their most offensive lawyer joke.

    The easily offended should stop reading now.

    A priest and a lawyer are walking down the street together when a young boy crosses their path. The priest says "hey, you wanna screw that boy?" To which the lawyer replies, "Out of what?"

    1. Re:Tell your most offensive lawyer joke by craXORjack · · Score: 1

      Change the people from a priest and a lawyer to a priest and a rabbi and then you have a really offensive joke.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  18. Re:You realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, *in* line. RTFA.

  19. Start 'em up! by runlvl0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What do you call a thousand lawyers on the ocean floor?

    A good start.

    --

    Carthago delenda est!
    1. Re:Start 'em up! by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Remember, in the soon to opened hunting season on lawyers, the people at Game and Fish have come up with the following rules:
      1. No standing on a corner yelling "free Scotch".
      2. No hunting within 200 feet of an ambulance.
      3. No hunting within 500 feet of an accident, (baited field).

      Why don't sharks bite lawyers?

      A. Proffesional courtesy.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:Start 'em up! by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      A: Water pollution.

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    3. Re:Start 'em up! by tm2b · · Score: 1

      "Know how to save a drowning lawyer?"
      "No...?"
      "Good."

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    4. Re:Start 'em up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you call a few lawyers on the ocean?
      Polution.
      What do you call all the lawyers on the ocean?
      Solution.

    5. Re:Start 'em up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What do you call a thousand lawyers on the ocean floor?

      The Silver Lining in Cloud Over Asia!

    6. Re:Start 'em up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throw 'em an anchor?

  20. The only thing by RobL3 · · Score: 1

    worse than this story n /. would be a dupe of this story on /.

    1. Re:The only thing by kzinti · · Score: 1

      worse than this story n /. would be a dupe of this story on /.

      Give them time, son, give them time...

  21. Psst kill YRO altogether and put it under Law by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

    then start posting only lawyer jokes to it.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
  22. How do you tell... by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 2, Funny

    when your first amendment rights are being violated? ...Your lips are moving!

    Thankyou, I'll be here all week.

    1. Re:How do you tell... by taniwha · · Score: 1

      or maybe "not moving"?

  23. Do Nuclear Holocaust Jokes Instead by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    If they make one genre of joke illegal then make up a new genre. A good new genre would be Nuclear Holocaust Jokes:

    Q: How does a full-partner shield his 25th story corner office from a Nuclear Holocaust?

    A: Boilerplate

    1. Re:Do Nuclear Holocaust Jokes Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, I don't get it.

  24. lawyers get a bad rap with all these jokes by Theolojin · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, just 90% of lawyers make the other 10% look bad...

    --
    Life is short; think quickly.
    1. Re:lawyers get a bad rap with all these jokes by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I realize that there has been a huge increase in the number of lawyers recently, but I really think that of all the lawyers in history the number who are dead and buried is going to work out to more than 10%.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  25. Two lawyer walk into a bar, one says to the other. by zenst · · Score: 0

    Comments removed due to legal reason: we above you, la la la. :\

  26. From the Fine Article by runlvl0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Q: What do you say to a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
    A: Good morning, Your Honor.

    Q: How do you tell if a lawyer is lying?
    A: His lips are moving.

    Q: Why do they bury lawyers 100 feet into the ground?
    A: Because down deep, they're good people.

    Q: What's the difference between a vulture and a lawyer?
    A: Wing tips.

    --

    Carthago delenda est!
  27. Yet Another Lawyer Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call a Lawyer with skid marks in front of his body in the road?

    Lucky a half assed job was done.

  28. This is exactly why.... by geekfat · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I stick to dead baby jokes. Since they can't talk, they can't tattle on me.

    1. Re:This is exactly why.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between a Cadillac and a dump-truck full of dead babies?

    2. Re:This is exactly why.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between a Cadillac and a dump-truck full of dead babies?

      I don't have a Cadillac in my garage?

    3. Re:This is exactly why.... by TV-SET · · Score: 1

      - What is worse than a thousand dead baby bodies piled up together?
      - One alive baby boy eating his way up. :)

      --
      Leonid Mamtchenkov ...i don't need your civil war...
  29. Discretion / judgement / intelligence by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In general, acting like an asshole in the presence of law enforcement is a bad idea. You may not get convicted, but chances are really good you will get arrested.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Discretion / judgement / intelligence by ryusen · · Score: 1

      But in this day and age of massive lawsuits... do you really want to risk false arrest as a cop? Even these guys could find a lawyer to defend them for the right price.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    2. Re:Discretion / judgement / intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And who determines what "an asshole" is? I got dark skin, some police officers think I'm an asshole by just being in their vicinity...

    3. Re:Discretion / judgement / intelligence by Bluetick · · Score: 1

      They were there to get arrested. No sane person goes into a public place and causes a scene over jokes that are so old and lame not even Leno would touch them with a ten foot pole.

    4. Re:Discretion / judgement / intelligence by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      if the line moved faster they wouldn't have told so many bad jokes!!!

      the real issue here is that the courts are so out-of-touch with "regular people" that they don't see the real problem... The REAL problem is expecting CITIZENS to stand in a line for search at a public place that's supposed to represent our freedoms. It's interesting that the lawyer would complain about one morning of bad jokes...when they stand in line outside every day to do their job in a public place!!! That's the real outrage here.

      I'll admit I was shocked last month to walk into a courthouse WITHOUT metal detectors...it's really become that bad now!!

    5. Re:Discretion / judgement / intelligence by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Or beat up.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    6. Re:Discretion / judgement / intelligence by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Why do you think these people are here (judges, et al)? To rule over your life? To tell you what brand of toothpaste to buy?

      A court house should be to free speach as a church is to religion. In the law not even the president is a 'god' who can take away your freedoms.

      If you are that timid of the law rather than respecting it you deserve to live you life cowering under rocks and letting others say you can't do this or that. Acting like an asshole is very broad but if the lawyer was a smart person he/she would have pointed out that at least they had a job (maybe add 'dumbass' in there). Then all of your precious law enforcers would have had the chuckle (but just at a diffrent asshole now).

      All im trying to point out is what they did was harmless if what they were doing was wrong then I bet there were many officers there that would have taken care of the situation. Because of one person who was versed in legal he got them arrested.

      Does that sound like freedom to you?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  30. "They hate us for our freedom!" by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    Our freedom to tell lawyer jokes....oh, wait....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  31. Next on FOX: When Lawyers Attack! by EvilAlien · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The First Ammendment needs to protect jackasses too. Labelling a speaker as a "jackass" due to what was said is a matter of perception, not fact. The court case resulting from this will be the test for the two alleged jackasses... unfortunately, the cursory description of the incident leads to easy classification of the speakers as jackasses, the lawyers as bloodsucking fiends, etc etc.

    If the two were wrongfully arrested, would they be capable of getting some sort of compensation under US law?

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    1. Re:Next on FOX: When Lawyers Attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The 1st Amendment protects your right to say things, however it does not guarantee you a venue in which to say them.

      For example: if I were on trial and tried to disrupt the proceedings by yelling down the prosecutor, I would not be within my First Amendment rights.

      This carries over in a lot of ways, but the thing to remember is that the basic aim of the 1st is to prevent government censorship (which this was not).

    2. Re:Next on FOX: When Lawyers Attack! by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      As you well know, the lawyers are crippling our legal system with their high fees and buffoonery. I have a national legal plan, that will make justice available to everybody, even senior citizens. Today honest courts are being being run out of business by these litigating lawyers. That's why I, as president of the united states, am taking bold action to crack down on the amount of lawyering occurring in the legal system. This will cut costs, and make justice affordable for all Americans. Thank you very much. God bless. Good night.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Next on FOX: When Lawyers Attack! by haystor · · Score: 1

      Commence Operation Shakespeare.

      --
      t
    4. Re:Next on FOX: When Lawyers Attack! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      I'm labelling the speaker as a jackass without knowing all (or any) of the facts. That's the reason I'm likely wrong. However, if these guys were really harassing everyone in line to enter the courtroom, I'm delighted to see them made an example of. They can spout whatever the hell the want... on the sidewalk, where people can walk away.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  32. You can take away my right to heckle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when you pry it from my cold, dead Don Rickles.

  33. I did RTFA by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Good thing they weren't making fun of Police Officers in front of a Police Station or while in one. ;)

    Anyway for those who didn't RTFA:

    >>>
    The men are founders of Americans for Legal Reform, a group of outspoken advocates who use confrontational tactics to push for greater access to courts for the public and to monitor how well courts serve the public. One tactic is driving a truck around the Huntington area emblazoned with the slogan "Stop The Lawyer Disease." They said their rights to free speech were violated Monday.
    >>
    But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.
    >>
    "They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said. "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance. And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court."
    >>
    Bagnuola said he did not have the name of the lawyer who complained to officers.
    >>
    Kash said he and Lanzisera were merely saying out loud that the public was being treated like peons or peasants while attorneys, who wave their security passes to court officers and don't have to stand on line, are treated like kings.
    >>
    "I'm not surprised this happened because anybody who stands up for their rights is put down because these people want only one thing, and that is control," Kash said.
    >>
    The men were given desk appearance tickets and are due back in court - as defendants - next month.

    Judges are lawyers too, this could get interesting. I wonder if they will show the court case on pay-per-view? I got the popcorn all ready just in case it airs. ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I did RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One tactic is driving a truck around the Huntington area emblazoned with the slogan "Stop The Lawyer Disease."

      They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance."

      The men were given desk appearance tickets...

      So basically, they're guilty of not being part of a union?

    2. Re:I did RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound like they need to change the name of their group to "Americans Who Enjoy Being Assholes but Want To Hide Behind The First Amendment". AWEBABWTHBTFA. :)

    3. Re:I did RTFA by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Judges are lawyers too, this could get interesting.

      Indeed. As every judge is obviously biased in this case, each off them should recuse himself from the trial, and the pair goes free for lack of suitable judge!

    4. Re:I did RTFA by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      Good thing they weren't making fun of Police Officers in front of a Police Station or while in one. ;)

      A friend of mine walked out of a bar one night, he had been drinking, but was not leagally drunk. A police officer was standing outside the bar, my friend turns to him as he is walking to his car and says "have a good night ... pig."

      Guess what. My friend spent the night in jail. The charges were eventually dropped, but that didn't change the fact that he spent a night in jail. He had a legal right to say anything he wanted, but in reality, if your a dick to an authority figure it's not likely they are going tip their hat and wish you well.

      Moral of the story ... don't be a dick.

      I'm not a fan of lawyers and it seems obvious to me that our judicial system has flaws, but standing outside the court and making fun of lawyers doesn't seem to be the most productive way to fix anything.

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
    5. Re:I did RTFA by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      "Judges are lawers"

      They weren't, always. Only about 4 years ago, my state (Michigan) passed a constitutional amendment requiring judges to have been lawyers for 5 years.

      I would have voted against that amendment, had I been old enough to vote at that time...

    6. Re:I did RTFA by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Moral of the story ... don't be a dick.

      WHAT??? NO!!! The moral of the story is you can be put in JAIL for being a dick. That is the wrong message.

    7. Re:I did RTFA by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      If someone is an asshole to me, I'm much more likely to be an asshole back to them. If I'm a cop or someone in an authority role, that could be bad news for the other party.

      In reality, most people respond to negativity with more negativity, that's just the way it is. It might be wrong, but it is reality. So what I'm saying is, if your a dick, don't be surprised with people act like dicks right back at you.

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
    8. Re:I did RTFA by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > It might be wrong, but it is reality

      Obviously I don't know if you are an American, but if you are...

      How can you claim that we live in a "free country" then? We are at the whim of those in perceived-power and when they have a bad day, freedom has a bad day. These people wield power over others, yet are not called into question when they abuse it, unless it affects a higher-up or if enough of the public finds out (very rare).

    9. Re:I did RTFA by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      no, it's not 'freedom has a bad day', it's one person that you pissed off and they reacted. Just like when you go to McDonalds and make fun of the kid flipping burgers and then he spits in your food. That one individual responded to your actions. McDonalds didn't have a bad day.

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
    10. Re:I did RTFA by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > it's one person that you pissed off and they reacted.

      No, it is a person in a position of power that reacted. A professional who is supposed to, according to his state Bar Association, act in a professional matter. Whining that someone doesn't like what you do -- when it is a known fact that people (in general) do not like them -- is unprofessional. This person has been given power, by the state Bar, and is expected to act like a representative of law, having him put in jail for a legal activity is unacceptable.

    11. Re:I did RTFA by hetairoi · · Score: 1

      A professional in a position of power is still subject to human nature. I'm not condoning the actions, I'm just saying it's not indicative of a problem with the judicial system, which is what these two dumbass's want us to think.

      --
      you're all figments of my deranged imagination
  34. Re:You realize by Saratoga+C++ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't this be "Your Rights inline" ?

  35. what's with slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting old news.
    are we sure samzenpus is not CowboyNeal?

  36. Lawyer Joke... by sid+crimson · · Score: 5, Funny


    Q. How many lawyer jokes are there?

    A. Two - the rest are all true stories.

    -sid

    1. Re:Lawyer Joke... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      So what's the other one?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  37. Ummm.... by fluxrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked, standing outside a courthouse expressing disdain for lawyers is perfectly legal.

    In some states, they even allow people to carry signs and march around in circles outside of buildings. In fact, from time to time, these sign wielding people will even chant repetative slogans (gasp). My friend, people have a right to protest, be it against abortion, creationism, blacks, whites, gays, white supremacists and yes...lawyers.

    Do I think these guys are stupid douchebags? Of course.

    Am I outraged that they were arrested for being stupid douchebags? You bet your ass I am.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    1. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand, these guys were screwing up everyone's day at the court. It wasn't that they were making stupid jokes (they were). It seems that they were stopping business from taking place, and when they were told to move out, they refused.

      Sounds like the right decision was made.

      But it also sounds like these two "funny guys" got what they wanted - an article about "how they were arrested for telling lawyer jokes".

    2. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (In the UK) you don't have the right to "to protest, be it against abortion, creationism, [b]blacks, whites, gays[/b], white supremacists and yes...lawyers.".

      I would guess the same is true in the US. Please go find out, stand outside the court house, demanding the black judge be dismissed, see how long you last.

      Lawyers o/c are not a "minority group", but evil blood sucking bastards.

    3. Re:Ummm.... by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Last time I checked, standing outside a courthouse expressing disdain for lawyers is perfectly legal.

      In some states, they even allow people to carry signs and march around in circles outside of buildings.

      The key word here is "outside"...

    4. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would guess the same is true in the US. Please go find out, stand outside the court house, demanding the black judge be dismissed, see how long you last.

      That's absolutely protected speech in the US. In Canada you'd be right.

      BTW, you have to use real HTML tags here, not BBcode.

    5. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. Most people were laughing. How is that a mother fucking DISTURBANCE? Holy mother fucking shit, where is profane motherfucker when needed?

      There was one individual who was offended. THE LAWYER was the one who was yelling! If *anyone* should have been arrested for being an asshole, it sounds like (according to the newspaper article) it should have been him!

      Not a lot of facts reported here, but if you READ the FUCKING article you might have a chance at not sounding like a troll.

    6. Re:Ummm.... by Londovir · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether or not they were actually outside the courthouse. It's not clear from the article posted if that's the case or not.

      From the article, it says both "The line leading into..." and "...as the queue wound into the court..." I would agree the first makes it seem like they were outside, but the second clouds the issue a little. I know it's semantics, but in the context of the law they were charged under, the semantics (ironically, as we're talking about lawyers here) are vital.

      What I find more interesting is what's not mentioned in this version of the article. If you read here, it goes and mentions that one of the guys was going to court to answer a drunken driver charge from his past. As others have mentioned, they often use "confrontational" tactics.

      The bottom line is virtually every county/state/federal court has laws on the books to prevent disorderly/loud/disruptive conduct from disturbing the business of the courts. I'd guess that what we don't know is these guys were making more of a ruckus than the articles state (as it's far more newsworthy and entertaining to make it sound like they're getting busted for telling lawyer jokes - makes it more Leno or Letterman worthy of reporting), and they're getting busted for it. If that's the case, there's nothing outrageous about it.

      Of course, this version of apparently the same story by Newsday adds a comment from one of the guys that they were standing outside the court. So who knows? :-)

      Given that these guys have already picked up a popular talk radio host (Ron Kuby) as their own lawyer, I smell publicity stunt....

      Londovir
      --
      Londovir
    7. Re:Ummm.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      (In the UK) you don't have the right to "to protest, be it against abortion, creationism, [b]blacks, whites, gays[/b], white supremacists and yes...lawyers."

      Perhaps you should protest that you are denied those rights? Oh whoops, you're probably denied that right as well.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Ummm.... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      repetative slogans

      Somehow I am reminded of people with too much money (the PWTMM) protesting to allow the cloning of Fido.

    9. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      smartest post so far, this and the Q and A jokes on lawyers

    10. Re:Ummm.... by danila · · Score: 1

      I think there is no difference between the courthouse and the space outside. Both are public spaces. A courtroom would be different though.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  38. Relevance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it captured on a web-enabled surveliance camera? Were GPS or RFID devices involved somehow? How is this news for nerds?

  39. Hey? Where did my comments go? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    It looks like Slashdot ate them! :(

    Anyway here they are:

    Apparently those rights are such that they can offend other people's rights?

    Well, okay then, nothing wrong with them exercising their own rights, as long as it does not impede the rights of others in the process, right?

    So much for respect of others, obeying the rules of conduct, and following the rules of order.

    I'll bet that lawyer plays Golf with the judge who will hear the case. :)

    Police officers also wave their badges at security checkpoints, because they have a job to do and cannot be delayed. The same, for lawyers.

    So basically these two men try to take control of a court from lawyers, judges, ballifs, and other staff?

    Judges are lawyers too, this could get interesting. I wonder if they will show the court case on pay-per-view? I got the popcorn all ready just in case it airs. ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Hey? Where did my comments go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey? Where did my comments go?
      It looks like Slashdot ate them! :(

      No, they just got modded down to oblivon.

    2. Re:Hey? Where did my comments go? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, is there a difference between a couple of guys in line, waiting their turn, passing the time by swapping some lawyer jokes, and an advocacy group who shows up, starts pestering people, getting in the way, and generally making assholes of themselves, in an attempt to get legitimately arrested so that they can claim they're being hassled?

      The men are founders of Americans for Legal Reform, a group of outspoken advocates who use confrontational tactics to push for greater access to courts for the public and to monitor how well courts serve the public. One tactic is driving a truck around the Huntington area emblazoned with the slogan "Stop The Lawyer Disease." (emphasis mine)
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  40. No, fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, freedom of speech in this country:

    Pay now, go to jail later.

    You can say anything you like, as long as it is as mundane and meaningless as we want your life to be.

    And the consummate "But that's like yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre". And when politicians yell "Terrorist!" it's just good public policy.

    Of course it is. Freedoms are dangerous that way. Just be careful who you believe.

    Meme Tech.

    Since 1798

    Leading the way in better living through perception management.

  41. OLD NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old news. Hit the locals yesterday.

    Yes, I live in the county adjacent to where these guys told the joke.

    Yes, my Tinfoil Hat is on.

    Yeah, it can block Gamma Rays.

    Yes, it's 10 layers.

    1. Re:OLD NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can it do THIS?!

  42. What do you call 1000 lawyers on the ocean floor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A: Bad for the ocean. You should bury lawyers on land in a pit with lime.

  43. Answer Candidate by IBitOBear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?

    A: We at the RIAA think we will never really know, as we are fairly sure that each lightbulb changed by a home internet user represents a lost lightbulb installation fee, which in turn affects the not just the RIAA lawyers but the Lighting Technicians and Carpenters and all the little people involved in music production to such an extent that we now have to over-task our lawyers to combat the menace of the Open Standard Lightbulb Organizations. Th pressure generated by these OSLOs, in turn, prevents us from determining the natural lawyer to lightbulb ratio. Until Congress acts to plug this fee-structure leakage with an appropriate rights management technology and enacts proper criminal penalties for circumvention of our natural right to control the exercise of the lightbulb changing task, we will be forced to file John Doe lawsuits in order to gain the suppoena power necessary to compel the lightbulb supply corporations with the names and addresses of their clearly infringing customers.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Answer Candidate by the+arbiter · · Score: 1

      That is fucking brillant. Wish I had the mod points.

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    2. Re:Answer Candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Q: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      That depends on how many 12 year old girls you can get in there.

    3. Re:Answer Candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...which in turn affects the not just the RIAA lawyers but the Lighting Technicians and Carpenters and all the little people involved in music production..."

      Hello. I am a lighting technician. I have been gainfully(?!) employed in the lighting/music business for almost twenty years now.

      I have consorted with all manner of vile creatures, both sexually and socially. I am known by name at the local STD clinic.

      I have an extensive criminal record, and I have been ordered by the courts to stay away from all schools, hospitals, and churches. ...and small children. ...and farm animals.

      Carnival employees shun my company with both fear and loathing. I was once forbidden to hitchhike a ride in the back of a garbage truck because I was too unclean. If I had a soul it would be interred in Yucca mountain upon my demise.

      Having said all that, I must add that my legal counsel has advised me that you have uttered an actionable slur upon my character by including myself and my peers with the RIAA. Never have I been so unjustifiably libeled.

    4. Re:Answer Candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Done. Most people don't think amymore, they just Respond.

      I think that will be my new sig.

      Copylefts reserved, any use of this sig will be summarrily applauded, to the extent of the Law.

      -Assaultrifle

    5. Re:Answer Candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a sound engineer, I must chide you for trying to make yourself seem nicer than you really are.

    6. Re:Answer Candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?

      156, but they do it as fast as 421.

    7. Re:Answer Candidate by Thurn+und+Taxis · · Score: 1

      You forgot one important fact: according to RIAA logic, one 60-watt lightbulb is equivalent to sixty one-watt bulbs. And some people are even using 100-watt bulbs, or operating multiple lightbulbs at the same time. Then they invite their friends over and share the light with them. So each person who screws in their own lightbulb is really stealing thousands of lightbulbs' worth of work from the RIAA lawyers! How long can we let this go on?

      --
      On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
    8. Re:Answer Candidate by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1
      ["...Th pressure generated by these OSLOs, in turn, prevents us from determining the natural lawyer to lightbulb ratio..."]


      Ah HAH!! I always KNEW those Norwegians were up to no good!!
      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    9. Re:Answer Candidate by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Your post reminds me of something which happened to me when I was younger.
      I was working in a Textile Lab. to pay my way through Uni. and the Fluoro Light above me was flickering all the time. So, being proactive, I replaced it with a new one. My boss walked in and noticed the light had stopped flickering and asked me if it just stopped on it's own. I told him I had replaced it.
      I was informed I was never to do that again, as it was a job for a qualified electrician. According to my boss, I could have been sued if anyone found out. If we had of contacted the electrician though, it would have taken two working days befor he came out to change the light anyway.
      Weeks later, when the electrician did come to change some faulty fluoro's which were flashing, he made the comment to me that he didn't know why we couldn't replace those ourselves instead of wasting his time. Not that he cared, because it was all money to him. He just thought we were being lazy. :-)

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  44. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 0, Troll

    And also such annoyances as the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Education.

    Yes, by all means, vote libertarian if you want contaminated food, unsafe planes and even more poorly educated kids.

  45. This is pathetic... by mOoZik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why could the lawyer simply ignore the men? Yes, I RTFA, and this was set-up to get attention by the two guys telling the jokes, but this is a pretty extreme way to go about stopping them. Besides, anyone but the most naive knows that lawyers will do anything to win, and in return, make tons of cash. I don't care about the money they make, but the methods which they employ scares me.

    1. Re:This is pathetic... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      They'd been doing this for years. Every day they go to the courthouse and harrass the lawyers on their way in.

      I don't feel sorry for them. If these two assholes stood outside the door to my office and heckled me every day, they'd be lucky to merely get arrested.

      Despite what the extreme left would have you believe, there is such a thing as improper behaviour.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:This is pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite what the extreme left would have you believe, there is such a thing as improper behaviour.

      What the fuck are you talking about?

    3. Re:This is pathetic... by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      They'd been doing this for years. Every day they go to the courthouse and harrass the lawyers on their way in.

      Almost makes me feel sorry for their lawyer. Almost.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    4. Re:This is pathetic... by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      Despite what the extreme left would have you believe, there is such a thing as improper behaviour.

      Improper is a long cry from illegal, a requirement for an arrest. What they do is rude, but not illegal. In fact, such public property is exactly the place to do it since one has no such freedoms on private property.

    5. Re:This is pathetic... by Zareste · · Score: 1

      [i]Despite what the extreme left would have you believe, there is such a thing as improper behaviour.[/i]

      And of course the logical reason backing this is... um... Okay well yer gonna go to Hell if you don't believe in it.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    6. Re:This is pathetic... by Zareste · · Score: 1

      [i]Despite what the extreme left would have you believe, there is such a thing as improper behaviour.[/i]


      Heh, force of habit.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    7. Re:This is pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't people on the Internet simply ignore Spam?

    8. Re:This is pathetic... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why could[n't] the lawyer simply ignore the men?

      Most of them probably did, and in fact there's nothing in the article suggesting that any of the lawyers had anything to do with the arrest.

      It's also pretty obvious that they weren't arrested just for telling jokes. But the article is heavily slanted in favor of the arrested individuals, so you really can't tell what happened just from it.

    9. Re:This is pathetic... by sharkey · · Score: 1
      in fact there's nothing in the article suggesting that any of the lawyers had anything to do with the arrest.

      Well, there's this:
      "The attorney reported Kash and Lanzisera to court personnel, who arrested the men and charged them with engaging in disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor."

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    10. Re:This is pathetic... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Despite what the extreme left would have you believe, there is such a thing as improper behaviour.

      And the extreme right would like to see anyone that annoys them thrown in jail.

  46. from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    " 'Shut up,' the man shouted," Lanzisera said. "'I'm a lawyer.'"

    The attorney reported Kash and Lanzisera to court personnel, who arrested the men and charged them with engaging in disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.

  47. Lawyers and other politicians are to serve public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they seem to be the only ones that get afforded legislated mandatory respect and the gendarmes to enforce it.

  48. slashdot fortune just happens to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No group of professionals meets except to conspire against the public at large. -- Mark Twain ...

    btw,... who do these folks use for a lawyer?

  49. what fool calls lawyers names to their faces? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fool that belives he lives in a free country.


    Maybe RMS can update 'The Free Software Definition' to add 'free' as in the United States of America -- The software is free until they decide it's not.

    ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free like the USA.''

    1. Re:what fool calls lawyers names to their faces? by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

      The fool that belives he lives in a free country.

      A fool indeed.

      --
      Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  50. Fact: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's perfectly legal to be a jackass in America.

    Secondly, who cares what their point was. Lawyers delicate sensibilities are not protected by the constitution, and their freedom of speech is.

    Thirdly, whatever they did has just been validated in the minds of a generally apathetic and increasingly mean public.

    Finally, your cited text, that's what bullshit looks like when it's formally documented.

    Honestly, if I was on a jury hearing the case of a lawyer who was brutally murdered, unless the guy was Jimmy Carter off the clock, it'd probably be a hung jury. It's called karma.

    1. Re:Fact: by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Finally, your cited text, that's what bullshit looks like when it's formally documented.

      Agreed. But so do their professions of innocence.

      Honestly, if I was on a jury hearing the case of a lawyer who was brutally murdered, unless the guy was Jimmy Carter off the clock, it'd probably be a hung jury. It's called karma.

      And I feel that too.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    2. Re:Fact: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Honestly, if I was on a jury hearing the case of a lawyer who was brutally murdered, unless the guy was Jimmy Carter off the clock, it'd probably be a hung jury. It's called karma.

      And I feel that too.

      Hmmm, if everybody felt the same (and I have a strong suspicion that most do...), the jury would not longer be hung, hehe ;-)

      Shark-hunting season is open! Now, if you no longer can exercise your First Amendment rights, at least you can exercise your Second Amendment rights instead! (Disorderly conduct gets a judge, whereas that other offense gets a jury trial!)

    3. Re:Fact: by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Agreed. But so do their professions of innocence.

      It sounds like they are innocent, at least legally.
      I don't think they were professing to innocence of being jackasses.

      --
      AccountKiller
  51. Why does word Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sound an awful like the word Liar?

  52. Your Rights Online? by tksh · · Score: 1

    While not that interesting in the first place, it doesn't have anything to do with my rights online. We're getting more and more irrelevant stories in YRO now, I think it's time to either post these under Politics or create a new category for them.

  53. Re:You realize by gkuz · · Score: 1

    No, it's Lawn Guyland. There you stand on line.

  54. They arrested the Muppets. by michael+path · · Score: 2, Funny

    From reading the article, it looks like they've successfully charged Statler and Waldorf.

    Thank you so much, America, for putting these Muppets where they belong.

    Now, what to do about Fozzy.....

    1. Re:They arrested the Muppets. by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      STATLER

      Thank you, I'd been trying to think of the other guys name for years.

      PS: I just saw these two interviewed on MSNBC. They came off like a couple of assholes who went looking for trouble, so they can act all hard-done-by.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  55. custom revenge by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lawyer: Stop calling me names or I will sue you!

    Jock: Shut up or I will squash you!

    Geek: Shut up or I will hack into your Xbox!

    W: Shut up or I will invade you!

    French: Shut up or I will propose a UN resolution against you!

    SCO: Shut up or I will demand a licensing fee!

    Boss: Shut up or I will outsource your job!

    Microsoft: Shut up or I will create a competing product.....and subsidize it!

    Slashdotter: Shut up or I will mod you down!

    Goatse: Shut up or I will send your mom a special email!

    1. Re:custom revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      script kiddie: Shutup or I will DDOS your ass.

    2. Re:custom revenge by strelitsa · · Score: 1
      John Kerry: Shut up or my wife will throw gin-soaked raisins at you.

      Ted Kennedy: Shut up or I'll take you for a little drive.

      Hillary Clinton: Shut up or we're going to have a pleasant day out at Fort Marcy Park.

      Sheila Jackson Lee: Shut up or you'll be keeping the flag company on Mars.

      Barbra Streisand: Shut up or I'll sing.

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    3. Re:custom revenge by reverius · · Score: 1

      Bill O'Reilly: Shut up

      Bill O'Reilly (again): Shut up

      Bill O'Reilly (to son of 9/11 victim): Shut up ... (or i'll... use middle eastern food as a sponge? check out the third line from the bottom there, folks... )

    4. Re:custom revenge by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      MPAA/RIAA: Shut Up or your favorite torrent site is going DOWN and we'll sue your grand-daughter's cat.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  56. Discretion - not just with law enforcement by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
    Shortly after the Challenger disaster, I was at a party and told the following joke:

    Q. Where did Christa McAuliffe go for her vacation?

    A. All over Florida.

    There were some smiles, but one woman became very angry. It turns out she was a school teacher - and the sister of a good friend, who became a little more distant after the incident.

    On the other hand, I first learned about Pollock jokes from John Toplovski - he thought they were hillarious (he was Polish - and very intelligent as are most Poles).

    So the moral is: avoid jokes about specific individuals or classes - unless you are very sure of your audience.

    1. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So the moral is: avoid jokes about specific individuals or classes - unless you are very sure of your audience.

      A friend of mine once got caught unwittingly telling Baby Jessica jokes in front of Jessica. 10 years after she fell down the hole.

    2. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      You might get a similar response with..

      "Why did 9 out of 10 WTC workers prefer United? - They take you straight from the airport to your office building"

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by damiam · · Score: 1

      What did one WTC tower say to the other? "Well, I'd love to stand around all day, but I've got a plane to catch."

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, your friend is guilty of bad timing... not for telling the joke in front of Jessica, but for telling it 10 years later.

    5. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These WTC jokes are so 2001. Doesn't anybody have some good tsunami jokes instead?

    6. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a very stupid woman. Maybe she has some legitimate reason for being offended if she were an Astronaut, or if she knew McAuliffe.. but simply being a schoolteacher? Were all the women in the room offended too because you told a joke involving a woman? How far are peoples artificial identifications with strangers supposed to go?

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
      Sure, the response wasn't rational in the sense of cold logic. You want purely rational, party with your computer - or try to emmigrate to Vulcan. I actually tried to justify myself by saying essential what you said at the time. But I've since learned that if you want to make and keep friends among the mostly rational but often emotional species of Homo Sapiens (especially the female sex), you have to watch out for this sort of reaction.

      It reminds me in a way of the vigilence needed to avoid stepping on the feet of my cat despite him being constantly underfoot and rubbing against my legs. If you want a warm purring comforter in your lap while you code, it takes a little bit of attention while he's underfoot.

    8. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > avoid jokes about specific individuals or classes - unless you are very sure of your audience.

      Just for a lame attempt to bring this back on topic, these guys DID know who their audience was... that was their point.

    9. Re:Discretion - not just with law enforcement by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I guess I don't see your story as a matter of logic or emotionlessness, but rather over identification. Rationalism and emtotion aren't really opposites, but simply different. It's not about Star Trek vulncans or computers, but the bounds of humor. Maybe in some circles black humour is inapproriate.

      Anyway, I think the sensitivity train works both ways. People who are overly sensitive will also lose friends do to their reactions. Are we all supposed to be forced into a bland existence where we don't say anything that might offend the most sensitive person?

      --
      AccountKiller
  57. Re:You can twist this situation anyway you like it by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

    where I am sure you had to be there to know really what happened

    Two things happened:
    1) Two guys went on the same obnoxious crusade to heckle lawyers.
    2) Some lawyer was humiliated when his opposition caught him crying in the bathroom.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  58. And in other news . . . by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    A pair is arrested for telling bomb jokes at the airport.

    1. Re:And in other news . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DON'T LAUGH!
      This will happen!!

    2. Re:And in other news . . . by shadowsurfr1 · · Score: 1

      Most likely has knowing how stupid some people can be and how much they want to bend the rules.

    3. Re:And in other news . . . by rcastro0 · · Score: 2, Informative
      And in other news . . . A pair is arrested for telling bomb jokes at the airport.

      Details on the "other news" follows. Miami. Two Brazilian Surfers. It has all been widely published and discussed in the Brazilian press. The following is quoted from an article in English about the incident:
      (...) two Brazilian surfers were arrested in Miami's International Airport under terrorist charges. Mizael Cabral, born in Paraíba, and Daniel Correia, from Rio de Janeiro, spent a good amount of time in Uncle Sam's land working hard to save money so that they could start a surf board factory in João Pessoa. They bought as suction pump here that would make their job a lot easier, but something really weird happened in the airport while they were going back to Brazil. According to the American authorities, they were joking about having that suction pump*. The man from Paraíba supposedly asked the inspector in the airport: "Haven' you found the bomb in the bag yet?" And the one from Rio would've said: "If you open up my bag, it will explode". In cuffs, the two men were taken to Miami's Jail under the charges of "false information about explosives, with malicious intentions, irresponsibility and disregard for the human lives safety". They can be sentenced up to five years in prison and they will have to pay US$ 250 thousand dollars each. They have been in jail for almost a month and the press has no access to them.(...)
      --
      Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
    4. Re:And in other news . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was almost busted down in late '99 when the ticket agent asked me if anyone suspicious had been around my luggage and I replied,"No one but the guy with the turban and the AK." I was sternly informed that airports have no sense of humor about that sort of thing.

      What a buzz-kill.

    5. Re:And in other news . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be similar if two people were arrested at the airport while waiting in line for telling jokes about how poorly security personnel do their job. Your post, unfortunately, attempts to make a false analogy. Adding a threat of violence to the speech of course makes it an arrestable offense. Rather than just saying something which someone else found offensive. Your post appears to have been custom designed to mislead people. Many consider such an act to be equivalent to lying. I feel sorry for you.

  59. Something fishy... gut instinct...???? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    Geez, what have you been eating???

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  60. Finally... by adeydas · · Score: 1

    Finally the jester got caught.

  61. i guess by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

    They were probably using their pda's chatting with each other through some random access point. I for one will not stand for that!

  62. Don't blame the lawyers... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1, Troll

    Lawyers are just like hackers, they don't make the stupid piece of shit rules, they just find the loop holes, sometimes for bad reasons, ok so they are black-hat but still hackers. If I had law skilez I would use them for money too, granted I would start out as the young graduate keen to make a difference and bring some good to the world, but after a couple of years I'd be suing 12 year old girls and their grand-parents and still sleeping good at night..

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Don't blame the lawyers... by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      Lawyers are just like hackers, they don't make the stupid piece of shit rules,

      WTF are you talking about? Of course they do. Who writes most of the legislation that gets voted on? Lawyers (corporate lawyers or lawyers for the special interest groups that bribe the politicians they're targeting, usually). Who votes on the legislation? Lawyers (most legislators are/were lawyers themselves). Who argues the resulting laws in court? Lawyers. Who judges the arguments? Lawyers (most judges are/were lawyers themselves).

      Lawyers of one form or another are intimately involved in pretty much every step of every lawmaking process we have.

      And these are people who often seem to equate law and ethics (and thus appear to believe that if something is lawful, it must also be ethical. I've heard more than one lawyer actually say as much).

      Little wonder the rules we live under are getting more unreasonable and oppressive by the day.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    2. Re:Don't blame the lawyers... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      You're grouping all lawyers into one group.

      <insert rant on white hat and black hat hackers here> s/hacker/lawyer/g

      <insert rant on corporate/proprietary vs. free software programmers here> s/programmer/lawyer/g

      <insert rant on PearPC/CherryOS, Linux/Lindows, or whatnot here> s/software/lawyers/g

      <i>if something is lawful, it must also be ethical</i>

      I agree - depending on your definition of "must". No law ought to explicitly permit something unethical. Such a law is a bad law.

    3. Re:Don't blame the lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah, wtf are YOU talking about? Lets back-track here a step.

      "Who writes most of the legislation that gets voted on?"

      Have you ever worked in a law firm? Or worked on a political campaign? Do you REALLY think the lawyers do all of that? Here's a dirty open secret: there are many, many other people in those entities that do the kind of work you are venting about. Remember that "slipped in wording" regarding a Senator or two to peep into your IRS returns? That wasn't anyone who was lawyer who (at last report) did that. That was one of his 'aides'

      "Who votes on the legislation"

      Who votes IN the legislators? That would be (if you are an American) you and I. We voters have first say on that question. Because of that, we can say who we want to be able to vote one the legislation. Additionally, do you think the lawyer/politician actually READS the legislation he or she is voting on? Nope, again, that would be his or her staff. If its a truly important bill, the legislator will have the PR talking points ready.

      "Who argues the resulting laws in court?"

      Who gets the lawyer to argue the matter in the Court? It's a normal person who's rights have been affected by the newly created law. Could that person be a lawyer? Of course. Just as it could be a farmer who feels that he should be able to farm as he pleases without the State interfearing with him, as the State can and does.

      "Who judges the arguments?"

      I don't know about any one else, but here, I damn well hope a lawyer Judges. Why? Because I want someone who knows LAW to interpret it correctly! I do not want a know-it-all Geek to spout some ideological, holier-than-thou judgment as to my right or wrong actions. I would much rather have someone who has experience with how the jurisdiction has interpreted the same circumstances in the past judge me.

      "Little wonder the rules we live under are getting more unreasonable and oppressive by the day."

      Heres a hint... DO something more than vent on /.! I'm currently going to law school, I've worked on campaigns, I've lead a statewide political (small 3rd party) party, and I'm working as a paralegal. Are my views biased? Damn straight. But, its ignorant tripe such as this that adds nothing to help problems that affect our society.

      Go run for office, I beg of you. I don't care where you lie on the political spectrum, run. Run. Run. Please, run.

      -MoA

    4. Re:Don't blame the lawyers... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Bad laws are still laws you know.

    5. Re:Don't blame the lawyers... by crusher-1 · · Score: 1

      Uh,.. let's think about this. "DON'T BLAME THE LAWYERS"! Hmmm, congress (the house and senate) are where U.S. laws are made (at the fed level-for states it's the assembly an state senate) and the overwhelming majority of those in the congress hold law degrees. So, we shouldn't blame the lawyers. Ok we'll blame the congress - which is made up of (what 80%, 90%) lawyers.

      Figures. Leave it to the lawyers to quibble over symantics. Congressman or lawyer... What's the difference?

  63. Old one: by niko9 · · Score: 1

    Whats the differnece between a lawyer and a cafish?

    Once is a scum sucking bottom dweller, the other on is a fish.

    Baroom.

  64. I smelled the same rat by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    It reminded me of the time my neighbors responded to my objections to their loud music by claiming that I "just didn't like their style". My response, of course, was that at 2am on a Wednesday, whether they were playing 50Cent or Beethoven was irrelevant - the pounding base was not. I highly doubt that these guys were arrested for "telling lawyer jokes". They were probably arrested for being obnoxious WHILE telling lawyer jokes. Of course, none of us have the facts so it is a moot point.

  65. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey dipshit, we already get poorly-educated kids. The government-run school system is the only business I can think of where failure is rewarded with more money, instead of a swift boot out the door.

    Mine go to a private school. The tuition is killing me, but it's a lot cheaper than having them live at home until they're 30 because the shitty government schools were busy teaching "self esteem" and "respect for the diversity of our ecosystem" instead of how to read.

    -paul

  66. Answer Candidate II by lax-goalie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?

    A: RIAA lawyers don't have time to screw in lightbulbs, silly! They're too busy screwing 14 year old kids and their grandmothers...

  67. Does this work for blond jokes? by tickleboy2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So if I tell some blond jokes, does this mean some blonds will come and handcuff me?

    --
    The only thing that will stop you from fulfilling your dreams is you. - Tom Bradley
    1. Re:Does this work for blond jokes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it really is time for all your fantasies to come true...

    2. Re:Does this work for blond jokes? by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Say, under the right circumstances, that could be a good thing...

      --
      I don't get it.
    3. Re:Does this work for blond jokes? by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except it'll be these ones.

      Or did you mean "blondes?"

    4. Re:Does this work for blond jokes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the many times I've been harrassed by the police, one time was a blonde female cop, who was actually pretty hot. She had to pat me down. It wasn't very exciting at all. Except whoooo, a slashdot nerd got touched by a girl. woohoo. I got some today. ... well, er, sorta. aahem. slashdot doesn't keep logs right?

    5. Re:Does this work for blond jokes? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Blondes don't know how to use handcuffs. That's the guy's job...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  68. Lawyer Arrested After Telling Pair Jokes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    because siamese twins don't mess around

  69. YROL? by tswann01 · · Score: 1

    sounds to me like "Your Rights On Line" would be more apropos than "Your Rights Online" --

  70. Your Rights, Online? by bgalbraith · · Score: 1

    Once again, this article has little or anything to do with my or anyone's online rights being challenged.

    Furthermore, you do not have the right to disturb the peace in a nonconstructive manner, as these guys were going.

    What next? At this rate, it won't be long before we see Your Rights Online: Ashlee Simpson Booed

    1. Re:Your Rights, Online? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

      What next? At this rate, it won't be long before we see Your Rights Online: Ashlee Simpson Booed

      Well, that wasn't exactly what I was hoping for.......... but it's close.

    2. Re:Your Rights, Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope the next time someone doesn't like your conversation or your viewpoint, they tear up your national id card, and haul you away to a prison that doesn't exist and held for questioning without access to a lawyer or being charged with a crime for an indefinate period of your lifespan. or even just borrow some of your DNA to sprinkle strategically on a crime scene.

    3. Re:Your Rights, Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Rights, On The Line?

  71. Citizenship by rattler14 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not completely off topic, but this is totally legit, if these 2 claim priveleges under the US constitution as US citizens.

    Very few people realize the difference between State Citizenship (commonly referred to as being a US national) and US citizenship.

    I'll cut to the chase, but the main difference is that a US national has rights guaranteed and protected by the constitution, while a US citizen has priveleges granted to them by the federal government. Like every privelege, it can be revoked at any time.

    Some links to get you started here and
    here

    The funny thing is, I remember a SNL skit by christopher walkin where he made about having dual citizenship, US and florida. At the time I couldn't stop laughing...

    Enjoy :)

    --
    my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    1. Re:Citizenship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This nonsense about state versus US citizenship is utter tripe. The "United States" can be referred to (and is referred to) as singular due to a specific political decision made back in the early Federal period to treat it as a single federal entity, rather than as a collection of entities. All persons born in a territory under the jurisdiction of the United States - states, territories, etc. - is a US citizen. Go to law school, boy.

    2. Re:Citizenship by NotalllawyersdoIP · · Score: 1

      Um, sorry, yes I am. I am a citizen of the US by virtue of the fact that I was born here. I am a citizen of my home state because I am a US citizen that resides there and intends to continue to reside there. This is not the same as "dual citizenship" the term means slightly different things when applied to US or state citizenship. In any event, the article doesn't give enough useful information to form a firm judgment about whether these two fine gentlemen were appropriately charged. I might mention that courts do have a somewhat higher standard of behavior than, say, your favorite board, so its not really that suprising that the two were charged. I would not be shocked if the whole thing is quitely dropped. The court made its point.

    3. Re:Citizenship by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Go to law school, boy.

      There can be issues related to jurisdiction and venue, and changes in process that can come about because of the way an address is styled. It's not nearly as important as the people who advocate such things (tax protestors, mostly), want you to believe.
      Probably the most significant consequence would be, say, to inadvertently waive your right to have your case heard in a county court because you filled out a document incorrectly and caused a procedure that takes your case to a State jurisiction.

      But you aren't going to get out of paying taxes, legal marijuana possession, or driving without a license, based on whether you spell your name in all capital letters or abbreviate the name of your state on a form. (Both are claims that tax protestors, etc., have asserted from time to time.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  72. If Dre were a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Mista Plaintiff, where the fuck you at?
    Can't crack yo' jokes, got no license for yo' gat
    Your dick on hard, from fuckin your advocates
    The courts you threw up with, jurors you grew up with
    Don't even respect your ass
    That's why it's time for the Lawyer, to check your ass, nigga
    Used to be my client, used to save yo' ass
    Now I wanna smash tha fat bank account
    Nigga bow down to the Bar
    Dissin' me, now I'm suin' you, little 'tard
    Oh, don't think I forgot, let you slide
    Let me ride, just another sue-icide
    Yeah it's me so I'm a talk on
    Stompin on the First District courts that you can walk on
    So strap on your Hempstead hat, your locs
    And watch your back cause you might get summoned, loc
    And pass the 'suit, and stay low-key
    B.G. cause you lost all your homey's love
    Now call it what you want to
    You cracked on me, now it's a must that I serve on you

  73. "Facts" of the case according to whom? by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read the article, try to discover what is actually fact. Notice how no uninvolved people were interviewed - we only have the statements of the pair and a court official. Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way. The majority of that article is little better than editorializing - filling in with opinion where facts are lacking.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    1. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      Notice how no uninvolved people were interviewed

      Amen brother. I sincerely hope we're not the only two people who were thinking that as we read...

    2. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way.

      Exactly, and especially considering they were part of an legal "reform" group and were specifically there to cause a disturbance, they shouldn't be surprised when they have to face the consequences.

    3. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      specifically there to cause a disturbance

      False. They were specifically there to take care of a small amount of business and have fun at lawyers' expense on the way in. Do you honestly think that lawyers don't sit around and beef on the general working population? How about people who crack jokes about political third parties? Those trolls are on /. and in public all the time (especially around election time). No one's hauling them off.

      What goes around comes around. Tell the lawyer to grow a pair and go about his business.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    4. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by jebell · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that lawyers don't sit around and beef on the general working population?
      As a practicing attorney, I can tell you that the only members of the public we make fun of are our own clients.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    5. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
      What part of the article causes you to believe they were there on any sort of business, beyond raising a small amount of hell? Anyone can wait in the security line at a courthouse. You don't need an invitation. The general public can go observe courtroom proceedings (in most cases, but not always) without being courtroom personnel, counsel or party to a lawsuit before the court.

      The article did state they are part of a legal reform protest group of some sort, but no where did it say they were there for jury duty or to sue someone or to defend themselves or otherwise having any business before the court.

      Based on that, I'm inferring that they were likely there, taking advantage of the public's access to open court proceedings simply to make a nuisance of themselves.

      I'm not familiar with this particular courthouse but many small town courthouses grant passes to local attorneys who frequently have business there to get them around the security gates without hassle.

      They're getting special treatment... so what? The courtroom is like an extension of their office in many cases. Doesn't it sound totally unreasonable to make someone with whom you're on a firstname basis waste a minimum of five or more minutes going through a scanner everytime they stop by?

      Their livelihood in part depends on their respect for the court and their willingness to abide by a rigorous code of conduct. There are worse consequences for violating this than having to go through the security gate.

      If anyone should be told anything, these losers should be told to excerise their first amendment rights where they will not disrupt the court. Maybe, right in front of the courthouse*??? Heh. Looks to me like that's exactly what happened.

      And, yes, there are limits to your first amendment rights. Get over it.

      * note for the slow folk among us -- that's right outside, on the sidewalk.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    6. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1

      Hahahahahah!!!! Now that, is some damn funny legal humor. Bravo.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    7. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by goon+america · · Score: 1

      This sounds a lot like one of those cases where it's strictly true but totally (and maybe intentionally) misleading. Like, if they were arrested while they were throwing rocks at lawyers' cars and making lawyer jokes, they could say they were "arrested while making lawyer jokes" and not technically be lying.

      For instance, we've all heard of the case where the woman was burned by coffee that was "too hot" (so that she got third degree burns and needed extensive skin grafts) and won $XX million dollars in the subsequent suit (which was greatly reduced in later phases because it was much too high). So, you see, it's too easy to sue people, because you can win a big suit just because your coffee was "too hot"...

      Another recent example was that a teacher in California was barred from distributing (Christian proselytization material along with) the Declaration of Independence (with references to God and religion underlined). So, you can say that "the school banned the Declaration of Independence." Those awful liberals are attacking our way of life!

      Not that I really know if this is the case, but it would be pretty ironic if these guys were using lawyer-like word trickery to bash lawyers for their disingenuousness...

    8. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      If you read the article, try to discover what is actually fact. Notice how no uninvolved people were interviewed - we only have the statements of the pair and a court official. Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way. The majority of that article is little better than editorializing - filling in with opinion where facts are lacking.
      True, but we can still form theories about what went on. For example, which seems more likely to you:

      1. These guys did liken the lawyers bypassing the line as "kings" compared to the "peasants" who had to stand in line (as the pair contend),

      or 2. In fact they were just randomly calling other people standing in line "peasants" (as the courts spokesman claims)?

    9. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the court spokesman's quote says "They were making general comments to the people on[sic] line, referring to them as "peasants," which actually fits what the pair describes. I think it was more likely these guys were grandstanding each time a lawyer walked past - making comments about the "kings" and the "peasants" intentionally loud enough to be heard by both.

      The fact that they were saying the punch line "in unison" (this by their own admission) makes me suspect they were deliberately telling these jokes to try to create a situation - not to innocently pass the time while waiting in line.

      Obviously it was not just a single lawyer who complained - I seriously doubt the court spokesman is lying when he says they were warned several times to stop being disruptive. That just fuels my suspicion that they were being loud and annoying (not just to the "kings" but also to the "peasants").

      Finally, one last thing I found of interest - why was the guy five ahead of them in line a lawyer if all the lawyers were kings parading past the peasants. Sounds like these guys don't know court procedure. For example - jurors in ongoing cases are sometimes given badges to be able to enter the courthouse without repeatedly going through security lines.

      --
      I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    10. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      general comments to the people on[sic] line, referring to them as "peasants,"

      There's no reason to "[sic]" that. "On line" is quite correct in British English. As far as you know, the spokesman might have been British.

    11. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by Rion+Wulfe · · Score: 1

      Oh good, that makes it all okay, then, since it's centered upon a specific set of individuals, (your clients.)

      Not at all like what these guys where doing, since they where talking about a specific set of individuals, (lawyers.)

    12. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by saintp · · Score: 1
      Not that I really know if this is the case...
      Don't RTFA and find out or anything.

      It's not a case like that. They were telling lawyer jokes in line, people around them were laughing, but a lawyer didn't like it, so he had them arrested. End of story.

      There's plenty of info on this story out there, but you have to be willing to read, not just post.

    13. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by AdrainB · · Score: 1

      Everyone by now should know there are 3 sides to every story. What one person said, what the other person said, and what actually happened.

    14. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by AdrainB · · Score: 1

      Usually the British use the term queue instead of line.

    15. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > yes, there are limits to your first amendment rights. Get over it.

      If I go to McDonalds and start making jokes about fast food workers, they can kick me out, but they have no right to have me arrested or sue me, as long as no one was hurt in any way (and I don't mean their "feelings"). There was no crime committed, there should be/have been no repercussions.

      There's a difference between limits for the public good and slapping someone down for peaceably expressing their opinion. Get over it? There's another option: Revolt.

    16. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
      Wanna bet those guys weren't also shown the door?

      Uh, yes there was. They were disturbing the peace, plain and simple. On McDonald's property, they could most certainly have you arrested if you were making a scene and you bothered them or their customers. That's what disturbing the peace boils down to basically. Now if your on the public sidewalk in front of McDonald, you'd probably be just fine. As would these guys, if they'd been outside rather than inside the courthouse.

      Go ask a cop.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    17. Re:"Facts" of the case according to whom? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Good catch.

      About a year ago, I got to spend some quality time twiddling my thumbs at the local courthouse. While most people, including private attorneys, waited in line to get in, some went in through a side door without a wait. These people included jurors with badges, and employees who worked there. These employees included public defenders and prosecutors, i.e., people who's offices are in the courthouse. They still had their brief cases scanned, and had to step through a metal detector.

      Basically, I think these guys tried to get arrested, as it serves their cause of agitating against the legal system. The legal system is far from perfect, but it's the best there is. If you've got a better idea for the legal system, write your elected representative and tell him or her about it. Or start a petition to have the legal system changed.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  74. I like ocean jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why don't indonesians take baths?

    Because they wash up on shore.

  75. More Lawyer Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q. What do you call 50 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

    A. A good start.

    Q. How do you tell the difference between a run-over lawyer and a run-over skunk?

    A. The skid marks in front of the skunk.

    Q. Why can't you find any lawyers at the beach?

    A. The cats keep burying them.

    Q. What's the definition of a crying shame?

    A. A bus load of lawyers going off the edge of a cliff with 1 seat empty.

  76. Re:You can twist this situation anyway you like it by Koryu · · Score: 1

    It sounds like they want media attention, and decided one way to get it would be to get arrested in the area of contention. If that is the case, then the lawyers are the dummies for giving them what they wanted.

  77. I can only hope you're from the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US our free speech laws are VASTLY more protective than what you essentially lack entirely over there.

    Over here the KKK can march down mainstreet preaching the evils of having too much color, and how such people are cursed and should not be considered human. It's not pretty. But by protecting everything we can insure that even the delicate a beautiful is preserved despite what even a majority would consider an offensive thorn.

    I hope these old coots and their lawyer hit the jackpot, and inflict a burden upon the court system that so grossly went against the traditions of our nation. The judge, the prosecutor and the lawyer who made the complaint should be disbarred.

    1. Re:I can only hope you're from the UK. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And before anyone from outside think too badly of Americans, I should mention that the KKK itself gets protestors, who normally outnumber the KKK by at least ten to one. The KKK is normally this sad little group of twenty people who make sure to stay well behind the police while people yell at them.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:I can only hope you're from the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before anyone from outside think too badly of Americans, I should mention that the KKK itself gets protestors, who normally outnumber the KKK by at least ten to one. The KKK is normally this sad little group of twenty people who make sure to stay well behind the police while people yell at them.

      yeah but here in America if you march with the kkk heraldo revera shows up and kicks youre ass.

  78. Re:Something fishy... gut instinct...???? by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 1

    Engineers have 10 fingers while mathematicians only have 2.718...

    --
    WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
  79. They are talking about... by Facekhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are probably one of the many people who feel that lawyers who make up the vast majority of the people writing the laws, the people working for the people who write the laws, the people who lobby for such laws, the people who enforce the laws (the prosecutors not the cops), the people who interpret the laws (the judges), the people who defend you in court, the people you must pay when you need to use the courts, and the people who are paid to use the courts against you, have a bit too much power in our society.

    1. Re:They are talking about... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. That is one of the most insightful comments I've read on /. in a while.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    2. Re:They are talking about... by Facekhan · · Score: 1

      At least someone read it. And thats just one reason why I lost all interest in ever going to law school. Its a declining profession that is dragging our whole society down.

    3. Re:They are talking about... by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      I give you first prize for the mini essay contest on why the legal system sucks. I have my own mini rant here. But yours is much better.

    4. Re:They are talking about... by Facekhan · · Score: 1

      Its doubly impressive because it is all in one sentence. I am Faulkner reborn! There is a typo in there.

  80. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to say that almost everyone who went to public school learned how to read just fine. But since IQ is relatively heritable, your kid doesn't have much of a shot anyway.

  81. Re How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Now, answer me this: How many RIAA lawyers does it take to screw in a light blub?
    Answer #1: None. They LIKE to keep you in the dark

    Answer #2: None - Most lawyers are too big a prick to screw anywhere but in a courtroom.

    Answer #3: None - That might shed some light on the issues.

    Answer #4: None - Lawyers prefer to call an expert witness - a psychiatrist, who will only help change the bulb if the lightbulb really, really, really wants to change.

    Answer #5: None - they're too busy suing the electical company for the injuries to their dicks from the last time they tried to screw a light bulb.

  82. WTF... by penix1 · · Score: 1

    ...are you on about?!?!? What has any of what you said have to do with the topic?

    B.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  83. Shamelessly stolen from someone on Fark by Atario · · Score: 1

    Q: Why should you avoid running over a bicycle-riding lawyer?

    A: It might be your bicycle.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  84. And the highschool slashdot poster has been found by dknj · · Score: 2, Informative

    legal definition of nuisance.. and this link has a lot of references as well

    Now go to your state's statutes and look up alcohol and noise complaints, those are the two spots you will most likely find a statute about public nuisances. Just because you are too dumb to understand the law doesn't mean you are exempt from it.

    -dk

  85. Q: How do you tell whena lawyer is out of control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A: When that fucking prick has you arrested for telling a damn joke.

  86. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

    an inconvenience or troublesome offence, as annoys the whole community in general, and not merely some particular person

    Oops. Looks like you, and your thin-skinned lawyer, just lost.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  87. LAME by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
    Did you hear the latest findings about Viagra?

    It makes the lawyers taller.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:LAME by sconeu · · Score: 1

      In a similar vein....

      Why do lawyers wear neckties?

      It keeps their foreskins from riding up above their collars.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  88. Strange dimensions... by ebyrob · · Score: 3, Informative

    The key word here is "outside"...

    From the article:
    The line leading into First District Court in Hempstead Monday morning was long and frustrating...

    Hmm... so the line to get into the court was inside the court? You must come from a truly interesting physical realm.

    1. Re:Strange dimensions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I wrong in thinking court != courthouse?

    2. Re:Strange dimensions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case it appears the answer is yes.

    3. Re:Strange dimensions... by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmm... so the line to get into the court was inside the court?

      Imagine a courtroom. It's inside a courthouse. Between the courtroom door and the exterior door to the courthouse is the rest of the building interior.

      You can't put metal detectors and X-ray machines outside on the front stoop. Snow tends to leave them somewhat used up.

    4. Re:Strange dimensions... by Sirch · · Score: 1

      AFAIK a "court" is not a physical location, but a collection of individuals delivering judgement under that name. So the First District Court could have been in one courtroom, and smaller courts could have been in others. Therefore, they could have been inside the courthouse but outside the court.

    5. Re:Strange dimensions... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      From the article:
      The line leading into First District Court in Hempstead Monday morning was long and frustrating...

      Hmm... so the line to get into the court was inside the court? You must come from a truly interesting physical realm.


      Or a really mundane one. I know every place I've ever seen that they have courts, there is the court building, which has lots of rooms.

      Each individual court is a separate room within that building. Stick with me here, I know it's complex. ;-P

      So if you were inside the court building waiting to go into a specific court room, what you're mocking as impossible becomes quite mundane and normal. At which point, they're probably justified to fine you for interfering with the court.

      Cheers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Strange dimensions... by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      You can't put metal detectors and X-ray machines outside on the front stoop.

      Wait! Wait! I think I have it figured out! So there's metal detectors and X-ray machines just inside the door of every courtroom? I can at least imagine that in my own physical realm, though it doesn't seem very economical...

    7. Re:Strange dimensions... by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      Am I wrong in thinking court != courthouse?

      Naa, just in assuming one or the other without thinking.

    8. Re:Strange dimensions... by ebyrob · · Score: 1
      Each individual court is a separate room within that building. Stick with me here, I know it's complex. ;-P

      I'll admit I'm not real familiar with the layout of a typical court-house. However, it seems immediately clear they were not in a court*room* and immediately unclear where they were.

      To me, the fact they were being held back by security seemed to indicate they were either outside the court*house* waiting to get in, or just inside the court*house* waiting to get past one checkpoint for the whole building. In my mind it seemed kind of odd that there would be independant security checkpoints for each court*room*, at least ones slow enough to cause a line, but there I go getting my exercise again.

      But, you know, if you have a map I'm happy to look it over. (And no, I shouldn't need both hands and a flashlight)
      The key word here is "outside"...
      Hmm... somehow it switched to courthouse
  89. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kash said he and Lanzisera were merely saying out loud that the public was being treated like peons or peasants while attorneys, who wave their security passes to court officers and don't have to stand on line, are treated like kings."

    I know it's hard, this was two lines after the part that you quoted. And somehow I'm not inclined to believe the people who are locking up senior citizens for exercising their first amendment rights.

  90. OT: Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by A+Big+Jerk · · Score: 1

    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!

    On /. that threat carries little weight.

    --
    >> Buy yourself some extremely long bed sheets. You'll be making an escape rope out of them very soon.
  91. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by dknj · · Score: 1

    i.e. if everyone standing in line is annoyed (which sounds like what happened).

    other examples: driving around neighborhood with 1000 watts of music coming out of your trunk

    hosting a party with 400+ people without asking/warning neighbors

    so if you have a party in the middle of a forest and a cop happens to drive by, you won't get a ticket for a public nuisance (but possibly other violations if there are any). and for the college kids out there where police use this excuse to break up parties, ignore it until you have to go to court over it. then ask all of your neighbors to come and testify that you were not bothering them.

    -dk

  92. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i.e. if everyone standing in line is annoyed (which sounds like what happened).

    Oh dear. You lose again.

    From TFA: "But while that rib and several others on barristers got some giggles from the crowd, the attorney standing in line about five people ahead wasn't laughing."

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  93. Missing facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read this you will see one of the pair was there for a drunken driving offense

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_stor y. asp?category=1110&slug=Lawyer%20Jokes%20Arrests

    1. Re:Missing facts by Snakera · · Score: 1

      Apparently "Americans for Legal Reform" drive around drunk so they can get arrested and harass lawyers during there visit to court ;)

  94. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except one of the accepted facts FTFA was that others in the line giggled. Boom beeoootch.

  95. Since when is a Drunk Driving charge a role model? by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/12/lawyer.jokes.arr est.ap/index.html

    Picking a slightly less biased article, we learn that said individuals were in line to answer a DUI charge.

    A little biased news reporting seems to be in play here, too.

    All said: 1st lawyer ought to be listed on the complaint. Since he's not, dismiss it. But don't go on about those two being saints... and I'm sure they weren't being nearly so nice as they make themselves out to be.

  96. Re:I did RTFA and RAFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only did I read the article, I also RAFA (Read Additional FA)

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_stor y. asp?category=1110&slug=Lawyer%20Jokes%20Arrests

    Seems one of the pair was there for drunk driving, what a noble cause that brought him to the courthouse (eye roll)

  97. They can fight it. by Harker · · Score: 3, Funny

    A good lawyer can get them off.

    Oh, wait....

    --
    When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
    1. Re:They can fight it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean, a lawyer can get them off, or a prostitute?
      Oh, wait.. is there a difference? :)

  98. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must've been pretty bad jokes.

  99. Another lawyer joke by bernywork · · Score: 4, Funny

    A lawyer wrote a will for an elderly lady. She asked the price and he said, "One hundred dollars, please." She gave him a crisp new $100 bill without noticing that a second $100 bill was stuck to it. Immediately, the lawyer faced an ethical dilemma: "Do I have to report this on my taxes?"

    --
    Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
  100. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be the sardonic wit of our age. Time to pick out a nom de plume, you can troll slashdot! (A site known for trolling itself.) Quite the achivement, I bet that HBO special is just around the corner.

    Why don't you take that list of 1000 yo' momma jokes you're no doubt commiting to memory, cover them and yourslef in gasoline and self-immolate. I've no doubt you could serve the world best as an object lesson.

    1. Re:Wow. by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Guess he's one of the one you pissed off with your ipod dissing. Keep up the good work.

  101. How is this disturbing? by tallbill · · Score: 1

    Awareness is very disturbing to people who want to remain blissful in their ignorance.

    Sad, isn't it.

  102. Yes, Your Rights Online. by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

    Think about it like this. It isn't "Your online rights" as much as "Your rights, discussed online."

    --

    Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
  103. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by ebyrob · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmm...

    Education: (~373 billion annual budget)
    http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/ar chive/doe _education_spending.shtml
    By far, the greatest part of education revenues came from nonfederal sources (state, intermediate, and local governments),

    FDA annual budget ~ 8 billion.
    FAA annual budget ~ only 28 million??!!
    DoD annual budget ~ 115 billion.

    Considering most of the education money doesn't come from the Fed anyways, and the huge size difference between things that would absolutely be cut, like DoD spending, and things like FDA and FAA, I think a reasonable, minimal rather than maximal, compromise can be met.

    Of course... I'm crazy, what am I thinking. If we cut ONE SINGLE PENNY from any one of those programs, and don't increase them every year (with someone else's money) then we're wavering in our commitment to the ideal these organizations are supposed to uphold. (You know, the ideals they uphold for us, so we don't have to...)

    But, you know, forget Libertarians for a second, they're crazy, they want to reduce the size of the Fed by 90% ASAP. Get any of the Democrats or Republicans to reduce the size of the Fed by 10%, or try for all they're worth, and I'll vote for *them* in every term thereafter until they start increasing it again (beyond a realistic inflation).

  104. They can't by tallbill · · Score: 1

    The lawyers simply can not fit inside of the lightbulb. They will have to screw outside of it.

    That is a variation of an old California joke:

    How many Northern Californians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    None: Northern Californians will screw in the hot tub.

  105. Re:Heres a Tissue to dry your tears. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mommy, they're making fun of me. Make them stop.

  106. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by benna · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I would vote libertarian socialist, but not the anarcho-capitalist excuse for a libertarian party we have now in this country.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  107. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

    I would vote libertarian socialist

    Put down the crack pipe FUD-boy. Libertarians are all about government staying away from citizens' personal doings. That happens to be the opposite of socialist.

    Stupid college kids with their parroting. You're no better than name-droppers.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  108. I like this one better by Rhinobird · · Score: 2, Funny

    A rabbi, preist, lawer and some kids are in a lifeboat, after thier ship sank. The lifeboat is overloaded and beginning to sink. The rabbi says, "We've all had full lives; we should jump overboard to save the children."

    The lawer says,"Screw the children!"

    The priest says,"Do you think we have time?"

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  109. How do you tell a good lawyer? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    He's dead!

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  110. New Slogan! by nuckin+futs · · Score: 1

    Slashdot
    OLD News for Nerds. Stuff that Mattered.

  111. No one is going to mess with those guys in jail by maccw · · Score: 1

    With a wrap like that. shesh!

    --
    My karma is getting better everyday.
  112. Um... by Slipped_Disk · · Score: 1

    I'm just impressed that my little shithole county's shithole courts are actually mentioned in a slashdot article.

    Nothing to see here... move along...

    --
    /~mikeg
  113. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is a libertarian socialist?

    There is no such thing. The point of libertarian is freedom from government. The point of socialism is to have the government controlling everything.

    How does that make sense?

    It's like, hey, I would like a communistic capitolist!

    or I want to be a fascist anarcist!

    or I want to be a FDR New Deal neo-con!

    or how about: I want to be a GNU/Microsoftie!

    Your completely bonkers.

  114. Re:That doesn't matter one bit. by Snakera · · Score: 1

    It does when the first article makes it seems like they went to the courthouse as some sort of free speech protest.

  115. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by benna · · Score: 1

    WRONG. Anarchsts coined the term, "Libertarian" to avoid laws against "Anarchism." Anarchists were originally (and some still are) libertarian socialists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism .

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  116. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever... crack-baby.

  117. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
    This is one reason why I don't like wikipedia anymore than I like dictionary trolls.
    No page with that title exists
    You can create an article with this title or put up a request for it.
    So just write whatever you like so that you can troll. Wikipedia means it's true, right?
    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  118. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by Ryosen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RTFM. Other people were laughing. Only the lawyer on the line complained.

    If you had read the article, you would also have noticed that the persons arrested were not mere average joes. They are members of a legal reform group that looks out for cases such as this one.

    They were silenced for their views that were contradictory to the court.

    --

    Ryosen
    One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
  119. Greetings from Nassau County... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...home to the highest paid law enforcement officers in the country, who have nothing better to do than arrest two old men for making asses of themselves.

  120. It could have beem worse by Len · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could have been telling hunter jokes in the woods.

  121. Lawyer Jokes by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny


    Q: How many lawyers does it take to violate someone's first amendment rights?

    A:(from a lawyer): THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

    A:(from anyone else): Just one.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  122. Re:You can twist this situation anyway you like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So much for innocent until proven guilty.

    Hey, they wouldn't have been arrested if they were innocent! Right.

  123. What's the difference between a lawyer and by 1shooter · · Score: 1


    What is the difference between a lawyer and a catfish.


    One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

    --
    6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
    My other Sig is a 229.
  124. Poetic justice by lildogie · · Score: 1

    If they were falsely arrested, they can pursue their greivance in the courts, except that they would have to violate their own principles to do so...

    That's poetic justice.

  125. Re:You realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I may be mistaken, but I believe that in British English, one stands On line while one is In queue!

  126. That is completely irrelevant information. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    This entire story is about the act of them getting arrested for telling lawyer jokes. The reason that they were in court is completely irrelevant. You can't just base their guilt or innocence *of this charge* on an unrelated piece of information.

    It doesn't matter if they were in court for jaywalking, smoking crack, killing kittens or being KKK members- their rights under our legal system do not depend on those facts and the matter of whether it was right to arrest them for telling lawyer jokes has nothing at all to do with this.

    1. Re:That is completely irrelevant information. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It doesn't matter if they were in court for jaywalking, smoking crack,
      > killing kittens or being KKK members-

      It tells us something about their general character, you worthless piece of shit. I am less inclined to take their complaints seriously with the knowledge that they are out on a bender in their daddy's pickup on a week night.

      Stupid red stater.

    2. Re:That is completely irrelevant information. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      It tells us something about their general character, you worthless piece of shit. I am less inclined to take their complaints seriously with the knowledge that they are out on a bender in their daddy's pickup on a week night.

      Stupid red stater.


      That's not how the legal system works. You can't demonize the person standing trial in an attempt to abridge their rights.

      Red stater? I'm in a blue state, and I voted for Kerry.

    3. Re:That is completely irrelevant information. by saintp · · Score: 1
      I am less inclined to take their complaints seriously with the knowledge that they are out on a bender in their daddy's pickup on a week night.
      I'm sure you RTFA'd, but forgot that the men were 65 and 69 years old.

      Furthermore, it doesn't matter a damn bit how they broke the law; they still have freedom of speech. We don't lose all our rights when we drink, you know.

      Stupid fascist.

    4. Re:That is completely irrelevant information. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > > out on a bender in their daddy's pickup on a week night
      > the men were 65 and 69 years old.

      Oh, come on and stop defending these criminals! Their 94 year old dad's truck was destroyed on that 10kph rampage!

      But seriously, even if they WERE kids, if the police were as all-present as they want to be, at least a quarter of the population would have DUIs.

  127. Not all lawyers are bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally use the law offices of Dewey, Cheatum, & How.

    Q: How do you get a lawyer out of a tree?

    A: Cut the rope

  128. Here's a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's exactly what YRO is. It's friggin obvious - why people keep saying "this doesn't go here" about every friggin thing that's posted is beyond me. Face it - your mental model of what goes in YRO is out-of-tune with reality. You can't change reality, so change your model already, and STFU!

  129. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just tried the link in the parent post.... Right or wrong the link Works.

  130. Re:OT: Re:I dunno, something smells fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By "introduce you to" he means "post a link to," and by "his sister" he means tubgirl. Just a heads up.

  131. I hear you're a fancy high-priced lawyer by shanen · · Score: 1
    "Are you really such a fancy high-priced lawyer? Do you really charge $500 for three questions?"

    "Yes and Yes. Now what is your third question?"

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  132. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by benna · · Score: 1

    You have a view of socialism tainted by the cold war. Real socialism means government and property in the hands of the workers, not the government. The basic theory of libertarian socialism as aposed to anarcho-capitalism (like the libertarian party) is that not only should people be free from government control but also from economic coersion, which allows employers to exploit their employees.
    See Wikipedia

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  133. hmmmmm by Marvelicious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These guys were arrested for making fun of our laughable judicial system. Need proof that our judicial system is laughable? These guys were arrested for making fun of...

    Sorry, if it was in a court room during a trial, sure, but all these guys did wrong was piss off the wrong people. Article mentions they are part of an organization to promote better public access to the courts. Obviously these two were a thorn in a side or two. Arresting them is pure abuse of power just to make a point.

    --
    Send whiskey and fresh horses!
    1. Re:hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would probably have to be there to determine if they were disruptive or not. My take from knowing who they are and the article is that they were probably putting a chip on their shoulder and saying, "Just knock it off," probably trying to embarrass somebody when they did so.

      There are less infantile ways of trying to reform the judicial system, if that's what they are really interested in instead of some kind of childish notoriety.

  134. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by benna · · Score: 1

    Search google if you like. The wikipedia page does work though.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  135. Your head a splode! by freakmn · · Score: 1
    " 'Shut up,' the man shouted," Lanzisera said. "'I'm a lawyer."
    What's the deal with this statement, and why haven't the grammar nazi's torn it apart yet? Though it may technically be correct, I don't think it's very easy to understand who said what. Sounds like some sort of lawyer-speak to me...
    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  136. You almost see the point: by lysium · · Score: 1
    But what fool calls lawyers names to their faces?

    The kind of fools that are disturbed by the fact that a highly-paid professional--a paper-pusher! -- frightens us so.

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  137. Free Speech isn't Free by ConsciousObjector · · Score: 1

    I think people need to realize that 1) First Amendment rights are not unlimited, and 2) courthouses are one of the places where your First Amendment rights are bridged. Schools are another. Regardless of how much of a disturbance their jokes were making, THEY WERE IN A COURTHOUSE. You can protest all the hell you want OUTSIDE the courthouse, but not inside.

    1. Re:Free Speech isn't Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says courthouses are one of the places where First Amendments rights are limited?

      Besides telling jokes is not protesting anything. I can see how telling jokes can interfere with public formal proceedings and thus need to be prohibited, but telling jokes in waiting lines? Those two guys should have executed citizen arrests on those that were interfering with their rights.

      Courthouses are public places, run by public servants and as such need to display proper humility when dealing with people that own and pay for them. Arrogance of "power" displayed here is unfortunately quite common these days not only in courts.

    2. Re:Free Speech isn't Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says courthouses are one of the places where First Amendments rights are limited?


      Not the person to whom you are responding. The word was 'bridged', not 'abridged'.

      It's unfortunate that people insist on rewarding poor grammar by pretending to understand it.

    3. Re:Free Speech isn't Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no surprise here, the person was probably one of those semi-literate goons they hire to intimidate citizenry in courts of this country.

  138. Your rights ONLINE? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Huh?

    This is about an event in a physical court building, not a website or somewhere else in cyberspace.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  139. Anyone else who didn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    think this was in Nassau, Bahamas?

    For a moment, I was seriously thinking of changing my retirement plans.

  140. Oblig. Family Guy by Ghouki · · Score: 0


    "Sir I don't like what you're saying, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it!" ... Peter Griffin

    --

    insert witty comment here
  141. Highly litigious society by Linuxathome · · Score: 1
    This post reminds me of the Stella Awards. Excerpt:
    It's once again time to review the winners of the annual Stella Awards. The Stellas' are named! after 81 year old Stella Liebeck who spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonald's.

    That case inspired the Stella Awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in the United States. Unfortunately the most recent lawsuit implicating McDonald's, the teens who allege that eating at McDonald's has made them fat, was filed after the 2003 award voting was closed. This suit will top the 2004 awards list without question.
    THIS YEAR'S AWARDS GO TO ...
    1. Re:Highly litigious society by tafinucane · · Score: 1

      Before people get too fired up about the outrageous lawsuits described by the "stella awards"...
      They're bogus

    2. Re:Highly litigious society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been victimized by a fake list sent out under the title of being Stella Awards as explained on this page:

      http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

      Now go read the rest of this site to see true litigious outrages.

  142. It wasn't about the jokes... by ItsJustLilOldMe · · Score: 1

    I don't know if it was mentioned... When approached they "threatened" the court officers... So is said by the union :-P

  143. Re:You can twist this situation anyway you like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My personal experience with being arrested... whenever anyone chimes in and says there must be a really good reason to be arrested, those people have no idea what they are talking about. You are one of those people, parent AC.

    Unnecessary, unreasonable arrests happen all the time in the U.S. of A. Since most people here do not have a lot of money, nothing is able to be done about it.

  144. Looking at this from a different angle... by srjames · · Score: 1

    It may seem to us that it's an abuse of power to have two men arrested over making defamatory statements about lawyers, but if they were telling Jewish jokes instead, and someone was offended, then it wouldn't seem odd that they were arrested for disorderly conduct.

    1. Re:Looking at this from a different angle... by ogewo · · Score: 1

      that jews hypersensitivity should be outlawed, or at least some of his rights should be taken away like they do with retards.

  145. Pursuit of Happiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no right to laugh in the Constitution. And in Nassau, it's against the law! Your right to joke ends where my right to be an asshole lawyer begins.

  146. The Beauty of Freedom by Nikker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They purposely and continually go to courts and heckle the lawyers

    That is the beauty of freedom that people overlook. The idea is that if you are unhappy with something and you want to spend all day talking about it to to a person or a crowd of people then those people have the protected right to agree or disagree with you with out recourse. That is what makes freedom.

    Now we do have other avenues availible ie media, but it does *NOT* replace your right to speak in public.

    I would say in terms of free speach if I was a loud mouth shouting my opinion then you would have just as much a right to ignore me, agree with me, or stand across from me and scream back. As long as there is no violence and no one is get a lynch mob going that is ok and it is good because it gives all of us a pulse of our society.

    Many would have you belive this is wrong and if you want opinion to listen to a radio or watch television. That is what I would call opression the media is a nice to look at thing but has no real meaning or purpose any more. If a housing complex down your street is kicking people out to make room for higher paying patrons would this make the news? Maybe.

    If not and you went outside and told evreyone your opinion should you be arrested ?

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  147. do you kiss your mother with that mouth? by infonography · · Score: 1



    A public Nuisance is what ever the cop said it is before they were arrested. Likely it will be tossed once a judge hears it.

    (So how many times have you failed that bar exam?)

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  148. The 80s called. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want their joke back.

  149. Inprisonment for jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am living in Latvia, which for 50 yeears was incorporated into communist Soviet Union.
    In this soviet period you could get into the prison for telling jokes (normally political ones).
    This was always regarded as a sign that the USSR actually was an "evil empire".
    What shall we say now?
    Is USA an " evel empire" too?
    Freedom of speach?
    I guess there is 10 times more freedom in former USSR now than in "Mother Of The Democracy" USA. :)) Sucks.

  150. Makes Me Wonder by nica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a couple of guys stood outside Planned Parenthood and made slut jokes, would that be OK?. OK, if you don't consider that a good analogy, how would you feel if someone was gathering a crowded near your business making fun of your job? I suspect many of us would deal with it just fine, but many would not, especially if it had been a lousy day at work.

    1. Re:Makes Me Wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, every day at work is a lousy day.

  151. We had that too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    60 years ago. Some laws by the Nazi Party. If you said a "wrong" joke, it got you arrested...

  152. You forgot... by camcloud1 · · Score: 0

    Q. What is the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? A. One is a scum sucking bottom dweller and the other one is a fish Ta-ta BOOM!

  153. More of the good stuff. by Facekhan · · Score: 1

    Sorry to reply to myself but some people seemed to really like this so here is more of it in my as of yet incomplete essay on lawyers. I may post this on my seldom updated website in the coming days.

    Lawyers:

    I am probably one of the many people who feel that lawyers who make up the vast majority of the people writing the laws, the people working for the people who write the laws (clerks, assistants, interns, sycophants, ball washers), the people who lobby for such laws, the people who enforce the laws (the prosecutors not the cops), the people who interpret the laws (the judges), the people who defend you in court, the people you must pay when you need to use the courts, and the people who are paid to use the courts against you, have a bit too much power in our society.

    If thats not bad enough they all invariably belong to the same organization known as The Bar Association, which is supposed to make sure lawyers act ethically, kind of the way the longshoreman's union makes sure that our ports are run efficiently. Now there are different Bar Associations for each state and some courts like the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States have their own Bar Associations. They are all basically the same, like branches of a major bank trading under different brand names appropriate to the region in which they operate only the Bar is far worse than any bank because a bank can only screw you out of money you are stupid enough to trust them with in the first place, and even if you really get yourself in hot water with the bank they are not allowed to imprison you or kill you, which is the one serious improvement that can be credited to modern lawyers, the elimination of debtor's prison.

    Lawyers, who are far worse than banks, have become the ultimate gatekeepers to the use and protection of what is supposedly our government. The prime directive of any government to its citizens is its exclusive right to use force against pretty much anyone it wants to for any reason or no reason at all. Although in some rare cases a government expresses it's desire to, at least in theory, obey its own directives, called laws, there is no one allowed to use force to make them keep their promise.

    Where did lawyers come from. Well the story goes that the gentle, "democratic" very loving (of boys), and tolerant Roman city-state, invented lawyers. They invented lawyers because in Roman courts only noblemen were allowed to speak and occasionally a mere peasant, called a plebian, who differed from a slave mainly in that he was not himself and could own property but unlike a nobleman could not use force to protect it, mistakingly thought that he might be able to get "justice" if he could convince the noblemen, who consisted of two groups, lawyers and military officers, that he was right and some other guy was wrong. The other guy was probably a nobleman who screwed the plebian out of money or raped his daughter and the only way to convince a court, run by other noblemen, that a plebian was right and a nobleman was wrong was by hiring another richer, more important, and perhaps smarter nobleman to plead the case for him. Otherwise the plebian, thats you by the way unless your checking account exceeds FDIC insurance limits. Peasants had little reason to use the courts against other peasants because they could just kill, maim, fight off, rape another peasant and the courts, run by nobleman and the military police, run by nobleman really couldn't give a shit.

    If only things had stayed that way, but like any bank that charges exorbitantly high fees (almost all of them), the idea expanded so that now in just about the entire developed world, and by developed we mean a place where a lawyer is more useful than a gun in getting your way, only lawyers are allowed to speak in court. Well, that is not entirely true, you can speak in court if you want to, but the judge, also a lawyer, will likely disregard everything you say, especially anything that makes sense, and tell you ver

    1. Re:More of the good stuff. by Dabido · · Score: 1

      "I think all lawyers should be contingency lawyers. If for no other reason than it would probably instantly cut in half the number of lawyers working today"

      And considerably cut the cases, as a Lawyer won't take on a case they don't think they can win.

      Enjoyed your rant very much. Looking forward to the next one ... and possible Russell Crowe movie "Lawyerator". The Nobleman, who became a General, who had bad lawyers, and became a slave, who became a gladiator, who became dead. Or did I just romantisize what you wrote about Rome. :-)

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  154. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by fatdave · · Score: 1

    "We the people, for the people" is a socialist manifesto.

    Discuss

    --
    --- Four bases should be enough for any genetic code
  155. "Malicious"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were, deliberately and with malicious intent, making a public nuisance of themselves.

    "Malicious" -- yet another word that has lost all meaning because it gets blindly tossed around by guys like you.

    (I agree that the two gentlemen of the story were begging to get their wrists slapped. But "malicious", oh humanity.)

    Enter the dictionary and wikipedia quoters...

    1. Re:"Malicious"? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Enter the dictionary and wikipedia quoters...

      Indeed, the wikipedia entry for liar is quite appropriate!

  156. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i.e. if everyone standing in line is annoyed (which sounds like what happened).

    According to the story, the others nearby in the line were giggling. That sounds like "annoyed" to you? ;-)

  157. Now I understand by menkhaura · · Score: 1

    Now I understand why the movement of migration to Canada... U.S. society is sick!

    --
    Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
    Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
  158. Give them a medal by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    From the few blurbs I read/heard and the article, they were basically telling the truth as we (the common dreck; ie. non-laywers) see it.

    Let's see- using the 1st Amendment rights impeded... uh, what other rights? The 3553rd right to not be made fun of? Kinda neat how the most important Amendment was the 1st.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  159. USA: by the lawyers, for the lawyers, by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of the lawyers.

    Lawyers are the entire power stucture on the USA: judges are lawyers, politicians are lawyers, and of course lawyers are lawyers.

    "lawyerocracy" indeed.

  160. Re:custom revenge - scox case by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Jeff Merkey: Stop calling me names or my lawyer will sue you!

    Groklaw: Shut up or I will censor you!

    That's all I could think of.

  161. Lawyers I know love lawyer jokes by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    As long as they haven't heard the jokes a million times already. Maybe the guys just needed new material?

  162. Lawyer Joke :) by Godboy_g · · Score: 1, Funny

    There was a trucker driving down the highway, when he came across a priest hitchhiking on the side of the road. Being the good christian, he offered the priest a ride. The priest accepted, and they were off down the road again. A little while later, the trucker saw a lawyer hitchiking by the side of the road too. Well, the trucker did the only thing he thought right, he pulled the truck over to the side of the road thinking to run down the lawyer, but at the last minute he remebered that there was a priest sitting next to him, and swerved to miss the lawyer. As he passed, he heard a loud bump. OH NO! he thought I killed a lawyer with a priest sitting next to me. I'm going to go to hell. He turned to the priest, and said "Sorry Father, I didn't mean to." to which the Priest replied, "Dont worry my son, I got him with the door!"

    --
    I LIKE TOAST!!!
  163. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "if everyone standing in line is annoyed (which sounds like what happened)."

    RTFA. Only one lawyer complained -- loudly -- telling the couple to "SHUT UP! I'm a lawyer!". Most of the other people in line were "giggling" at the jokes.

  164. I know one... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Q: What's black and tan and looks great on a lawyer?
    A: A Rottweiler.

    Q: Did you hear about the lawyer who was accidentally overpaid by his client?
    A: He was in a moral dilemma because he didn't know if he should tell his partner.

    uh, oh...maybe I should post anonymously...

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  165. Re:YRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about your rights. And the story is online. Dumbass.

  166. Scumbags by nuggz · · Score: 1

    They aren't protestors.
    They're scumbags causing a disturbance who want sympathy to get out of it.

    The one guy is a drunk driver, one of the crimes I have absolutely no sympathy for.

  167. I wonder what the defense lawyer has to say to: by urbieta · · Score: 1

    Maybe we need a lawyer jokeathon to lightn up the day!

    and to start the day:

    A dying man calls his priest (rabby or whatever), doctor and lawyer to his death bed, gave each 25,000 USD and ask them to pur the money on his tomb in case he dies to make sure hell be welthy in the afterlife according to his regional cultural beliefs.

    A week later he dies, the three attend the funeral and put their respective envelopes with the body.

    Three months later they meet ocationally, and the priest tells the other two that he only gave 10,000 USD back only because he did not want to waste all that money; the doctor confesses as well only to giving back 8,000 USD!

    The lawyer starts telling them that they should be very ashamed, and that his an example to honesty since his personal check in the envelope was for the complete 25,000! :D

  168. Remember kids... by dbright · · Score: 1

    "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."

  169. dud by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    When was the last time that shooting a cop, or even showing them a gun, or just widespread public gun ownership, has kept them from abusing their power? The rising police state is swelling at the same rate as gun ownership, and most gun owners would say that cops need *more* power to push around people, because "we're too nice to criminals". We've had the 2nd Amendment for centuries - why hasn't it stopped the government's abuse of power, including shooting people without recrimination in highly armed neighborhoods?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:dud by orpx · · Score: 1

      make install war

      *- ERROR, intellgence v.69 required

      SCO#

    2. Re:dud by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      intelligence required

      This war is over before it began. Don't attend a battle of wits unarmed.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:dud by orpx · · Score: 1

      is a minor spelling/typo error what you call wits? Ha. Don't be retarded. Til then keep improving on your arts of correctitude in spelilization, HEHE, it will matter only in a small room.

      my previous comment was not one of encouragement for war, but a mere reference. You seem to be happy to go blind.

    4. Re:dud by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You reply to my .sig with its converse - not a "mere reference", but a contradiction. Obviously an attempt at conflict. Then, your weak parody includes a "typo" in an (inaccurately) simulated automated error message. So you tried to get snarky, playing on a theme of "intelligence", but betray your inadequacy in that regard. Then you weasel around with "only a reference", and try to call me "retarded"; then there's some opaque "blind" reference. Just an observation: you're an idiot.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:dud by orpx · · Score: 1

      You reply to my .sig with its converse - not a "mere reference", but a contradiction.

      *sigh*, moron, the only contradiction is in your head. The reference is something that can be understood. Yes. I am the idiot. Keep jumping around so you can believe that.

      I didnt expect some nazi to come around, correct my spelling, then give an elaborate exception on why he is right. Damn, I really hope your not a doctor. You sound like the kind that would prescribe medicines without fully knowing anything besides what they read in a book. Don't bother to make connections in your head, rather the most obvious ones that you 'feel'.

      Im sorry, was my parody not to your liking? Im sorry master, I'll try to please you much better next time. I realize your life is too worthless to understand intrinsic value instead.

    6. Re:dud by orpx · · Score: 1

      FYI dumbass, I said it was a reference, too bad you can't figure it out, and too bad you pissed me off to not give you any clue into what im saying. Stay away from patients.

    7. Re:dud by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're not old enough to be talking to adults. I don't care about your cryptic "reference". You don't have a clue yourself about what you're saying. Stay away from the keyboard - you're in over your head.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:dud by orpx · · Score: 1

      I suppose, you have excused yourself to be labeled an 'adult'. You don't care, so don't fucking respond, kid. It's that simple. And you try to prove you are an adult by responding? You give yourself every 'right' to beleive you are an adult. I guess _arrogant_ kids have learned to do anything with their 'WITS' and all, lmao, get a real life, pathetic poser, learn some humility or be devoured.

      And you think I called you retarded? Ha, you must beleive you ARE retarded, being that I DID NOT call you retarded, but only your blind act of labeling wits with correct spelling. You sir are an American Nazi, who rather beat people up for simple mistakes rather than try to improve on the bigger picture, because you are too arrogant to accept it. Keep learning, kid.

    9. Re:dud by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      Why? Because not enough cops are getting shot! Isolated incidents are blamed on the shooter rather than the officer or the department. If more cops get shot, maybe it will force an examination of candidate screening, training, and departmental policies. When pigs start behaving like public servants instead of thugs, then they can be treated like human beings again.

    10. Re:dud by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      After the Republican National Convention in NYC, the cops "preemptively detained" thousands of people, some demonstrating and some just passing thru. For longer than the legally required max detention before being charged. On an abandoned pier that apparently was tainted with toxic waste, and without enough basic amenities like medical assistance (a pregnant woman had some unaided complications in custody, etc). The official NYPD defense was "unexpectedly large crowds", but their own measures of the crowds are exactly the size of the crowds in their own measures from their pre-convention budget requests. The cops in NYC are now clearly unable to handle a large event without damaging the people unnecessarily, in the name of their security.

      So many in NYC are saying that we can't have the NYPD protect us, and our visitors, in a 2012 Olympics. It's too hard for the cops to do it right, even when we give them whatever they want to meet their own predicted scenarios. So we're rejecting the NYC 2012 Olympics bid. Of course these problems cause damage to the people of NYC every day, but the Olympics is a new goal that's too ambitious. In preventing the Olympics, enough people who usually don't care about "protecting criminals" might get hit where it hurts enough to actually look at the NYPD which threatens even them, when they're isolated from their TV sets in their wealthier, or whiter communities. Here's a specific action, with plenty of time to prepare, that you can effectively talk about with your friends; the NYC bid organization still has several months to "straighten out the kinks" in NYC's plan before pitching it to the International Olympic Committee later this year. Spread the word, and we'll see if some sports vanity can get some changes that years of shooting innocents has not.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  170. Re:And the highschool slashdot poster has been fou by ElQueso · · Score: 1

    RTFM(manual)? Shouldn't it be RTFA(article)?

  171. Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyers are fags.

  172. I could be wrong by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    From reading this article it never stated if more people than just the one lawyer complained. The article said that "they were asked several times to settle down", by whom? The lawyer? Or court bailifs?

    It never stated why the men were there, were they there on business meaning they had a court appearance or were they merely there to witness the days court proceedings, which is their right.

    The fault is their own, wether there on business or just exercising their legal right to appear. They should have conducted themselves in a mature manner if however, the lawyer was the only one to complain and the men were not asked to leave the courts, which if they were there to simply watch, surely they would have been told to if causing a disturbance an arrest was not warranted given the facts of the article.

    Seems to me one lawyer threw his weight around because the ambulance chaser was offended by a few wise cracks. The old codgers were bored and having some fun.

    To the lawyer who had the gezers arrested just because you have passed a BAR exam and possibly have a law degree doesn't give you the right to be a total prick. Get your head out of your ass, it was old guys cracking jokes, you can't take a joke then bury your head back into your mothers teet you whiny little pratt.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  173. That's ok... by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    The lawyers will get it, and that's what counts.

  174. It's called a protest by geekoid · · Score: 1

    They are allowed to do that.
    The law was bent to give favortism to those who didn't like what they said.

    the only stupid person here is the lawyer for proving their point. A smart lawyer would have done what they tell there clients to do, shut the hell up.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  175. Lets take a close look, shall we? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts,"
    not the lawyer who reported them.

    " said the men were causing a stir "
    stir? is that a legal term? in what way is a stir illegal? I notice he didnt say disturbance.

    "and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court."
    who? who didn't get there time in court because of them? what rights were impeded?

    "They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said.
    Ok this is good. please point aout an abusive comment?

    "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' "

    Notice, they don't mention the context?
    "Look at them go in like kings while were treated like peasants.How do you like being a peasant?
    none of those comments seem disturbing at all. Since the people who are accusing them of commiting a crime released the press statment, I am inclined to think if they had said something disruptive, there would hahe been quotes.

    "and they were causing a disturbance."
    OK we've seen 'stir' once and disturbance twice, still no information on the disturbance other then vauge generalities

    " And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner,"

    how do they mean, sit down, shutup and do what your told? is that the new civility in this country? Again the only person how was disturbed seem to be one lawyer who only complained anonymously. nobody else in line compained, and in fact they were laughing.

    " not to interfere with the operation of the court."
    If standing in line making jokes interferes with the courst system, then somethiing is wrong.

    I, for one, have had enough of this crap were we are told how we must behave or we can go to prison.
    My God, we loive in a time were hardly anyone complains when airport officials feel up small children. What the fuck is wrong?

    The point was that the rules are changed bent and suspended for people in power. i.e. abusive lawyers.
    FInally: No I do not think all lawyers are bad, but I believe a lot of them are spoiled SOB who need a fucking wake up call. If lawyers continue to ignore the growing outrage against them, then eventually they will end up against the wall.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Lets take a close look, shall we? by Dabido · · Score: 1

      '" not to interfere with the operation of the court." If standing in line making jokes interferes with the courst system, then somethiing is wrong.'

      If it made the anonymous Lawyer cry so much that they forgot the Wookie Defense needed for the trial, then that is a major disruption to the court. :-)

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  176. the story behind it by PMuse · · Score: 1

    A man walks into a curio shop and begins to browse. His eyes are immediately drawn to an odd-looking bronze figurine in the shape of a rat. The tag says $12.

    "Where did you get this bronze rat? Is this really $12?" he asks the shopkeeper.

    "Oh, that is a very special rat, sir. The statue is $12, but it is $500 for the story behind it."

    "I can do without the story," says the man and hands over the $12.

    "You'll be back for the story, I am thinking," smiles the shopkeeper.

    Soon after the man exits the shop with his purchase, he notices a rat emerge from a sewer grate and begin to follow him. Another appears a moment later, then another. Soon a dozen or more rats have appeared and are running along behind him. Alarmed, the man begins walking faster, but this only draws more rats out of the sewer. In a panic, he begins to run, but within a minute, hundreds, then thousands of rats are chasing the man down the street.

    Desperate to escape them, he flees down a pier and hurls the brass rat into the water. The swarming rats pour off the end of the pier and swim down after the bronze rat until all have drowned.

    After the man has caught his breath, he returns to the shop.

    The shopkeeper chuckles from behind his counter, "So, you have come back for the story, then?"

    "No, says the man, "But I was wondering if you happened to have a golden lawyer?"

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  177. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the term "libertarian socialist" an oxymoron kinda like "Jumbo Shrimp" and "Microsoft Works"?

  178. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "And also such annoyances as the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Education.

    Yes, by all means, vote libertarian if you want contaminated food, unsafe planes and even more poorly educated kids."


    Well, that means less worthless people in the gene pool, after all, it's survival of the fittest, not survival of the worthless.
  179. Yes, actually, completely off topic by JLavezzo · · Score: 1

    How did the parent get modded informative??? He linked to a rather crackpot web site with lots of really, really not convincing explanations of the "difference" between "State Citizenship" and "US citizenship". Oh, and did I mention the whole goal of the linked website is to show you don't have to pay federal income tax, or more specifically I think, that the federal government can not leagally tax "Stage Citizens"? Because, I guess, the author doesn't like having a federal government.

  180. Time and place for everything. by FishinDave · · Score: 1

    I wonder how these two would have done with nigger jokes at a NAACP gathering, or moron jokes at the Special Olympics? Would all of us 1st Amendment fans be defending them for that kind of behavior?

    1. Re:Time and place for everything. by klang · · Score: 1

      get a grip .. ..eventhough there is a resemblence between morons and lawyers..

  181. wow! by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

    Boy, you Americans sure do have a lot of freedom!

    --
    "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
  182. Obligatory Tech Joke by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    Know why sound technicians say "Check One Two. Check One Two"?
    If they could count any higher, they'd be lighting technicians.

    I agree that there probably was more to the case. Heck, after seeing that they're involved in a campaign involving a van with billboard and seeing the list of other jokes, I wouldn't be surprised if the joke were less of a quiet aside to a friend and more of a shouted at the top of the lungs announcement. *shrug* But honestly, they're doing a pretty good job. They'll get massive publicity for this and I doubt the media will paint them as anything but a pair of fun-loving jokesters unjustly persecuted by the law. After all, everyone loves an underdog and haven't all of us wanted to start cracking jokes like that when stuck in tortuous legal situations?

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  183. In our city... by brindafella · · Score: 1

    Winter in our city gets so cold, some days, that the lawyers have to put their hands in their own pockets.

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.