If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Farkette)   Former Tulsa mayoral candidate arrested for throwing a bottle at a passing vehicle (while wearing body armor and riding a bike decorated with a large inflated penis).   (kotv.com) divider line 108
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

77 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2003 at 9:20 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-04-04 10:41:04 PM
For a real kick, click on the "Support" tab of his website....truly wonderful reading. :o)
 
2003-04-04 10:44:36 PM
Why can't that be considered speech? Speech isn't literal for what you say out loud to other people, it includes other forms of expression such as art and written works. "Speech" is very vague. It allows someone to express himself or herself in any way he or she sees fit. The fact that you don't recognize his method or his message means little.

Let's just say I don't consider writing "freedom of speech", and I'm not the press. Does that mean I can't express my own opinions anymore? Guess so. I'll be sure to report myself to the authorities upon submitting this.

/Doesn't recognize his message either, but doesn't know the guy.
 
2003-04-04 10:45:20 PM
You know where this "freedom of expression" crap comes from? It comes from legal precedent. And, precedent is like piss, two hundred years of it will erode even stainless steel.
 
2003-04-04 10:46:42 PM
If you look in the dictionary you will find that "speech" is not at all a vague or undefined term.
 
2003-04-04 10:50:10 PM
Speech is spoken.
Press is written.
Your right to speak or write your opinion without fear is guaranteed by law, no matter how inane or illogical it is.

A giant dick is not an opinion.
 
2003-04-04 10:51:35 PM
No Nanookanano, bad precedents are like piss (Dred Scott for example). But when considering that the adversial system of justice is in large part based on precedents, their validity is apparent. I don't see one as paramount as freedom of expression being abandoned anytime soon, but then again, Patriot Act III hasn't been drafted yet.
 
2003-04-04 10:52:03 PM
He is expressing the fact that he is a big dick.

/Not has.
 
2003-04-04 10:56:02 PM
But what about political cartoons? Say I drew one that depicted Dubya in a less than flatering light, would I be arrested for that? Freedom of speech, in terms of the Founding Fathers as well as standard legal interpretation, has always been a very broad term. If Tulsa has obscenity laws, try getting him on that, but it would probably be overruled by the "Supreme Law of the Land."


And Anti_Freak_Machine, regardless of what happened, that was a golden day for cable news. A gun battle in LA, doesn't get much better than that.
 
2003-04-04 10:56:48 PM
Trust me, 'minz, I treasure my freedom of speech. But I have a problem with people pushing the envelope because they want to get away with as much as possible. A self controlled individual has little truck with the law. The offender is the type of person around whom the law is built. I'm just tired of criminals being the formulative people of the laws of my country.

And, where do you get that term "freedom of expression"?
 
2003-04-04 10:58:31 PM
What about the freedom of a parent to keep their kids from seeing some freak waving a big phalice at them?
 
2003-04-04 10:58:52 PM
If you drew the President with a giant dick, and paraded it through town? Yes, I have no problem with your being arrested for that.
 
2003-04-04 11:01:01 PM
And, no (yourself) all precedent is like piss.
If you write a law, let it stand. If it is wrong, rewrite it. But, don't push the meanings around until the strength of the law is made entirely plastic.
 
2003-04-04 11:03:38 PM
Damn, you're right. Does this mean we can ban country music, just not the lyrics? I'm willing to sacrifice my freedom of expression for that.

*Checks a dictionary for speech*

I stand corrected again. It IS defined.

Speech:
"words or conduct used to communicate or express a thought: "expression" "

freedom of speech:
"The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996
 
2003-04-04 11:03:39 PM
From what I remember, the term "freedom of expression" has origins in the Common Law, and is used when refering to the collective civil liberties found in the 1st amendment. I believe the intention of Madison (as he was the go-to guy in terms of disestablishment, free exercise, rights etc) was to guarantee these liberties in the broadest possible terms, so any deviation could be delt with effectively.

But once again, check into obscenity laws--I imagine a lower court would rule in your favor, but this guy seems so batshiat crazy that he'd probably take it to the Supreme Court.
 
2003-04-04 11:08:10 PM
See, you're thinking precedentially: 'If this guy can't be allowed to do this outrageous thing then my ability to do a resonable thing is threatened.' This comes from giving over the courtroom to the lawyers. We need to give the courtroom back to the jury and the judge. We need to think more situationally: 'What is reasonable, prudent and just in this particular case.'
 
2003-04-04 11:09:16 PM
So, it's a catchphrase.
I thought as much.
 
2003-04-04 11:15:18 PM
But the president IS a giant dick!
 
2003-04-04 11:15:53 PM
Panda, it's pointless to try to reason with the "show me the word 'expression' in the Constitution" crowd. When it suits them, they'll argue that the only legal tool needed for constitutional interpretation is the dictionary; and, if a word isn't found in the text of the document, then protection is lacking. Of course, if you ask them to show you where the word "gun" appears, they will go apoplectic.
 
2003-04-04 11:15:57 PM
But there's problems with that; I'm sure you've heard the old adage about how our government was formed by geniuses, so it could be run by morons--this is relevant...

Precedents are required for the law to operate in a fair and efficient manner. A case by case basis leads to discrimination and corruption, and thus is unreliable in terms of the law. By enacting these broad statutes, we may have to endure some unpleasant things, but the overall effect is far greater.

If precedents/standing laws were abandoned for a more individual approach, our freedoms would be eroded until only a totalitarian state. Procedural law often makes little sense, but it is a damn fine thing.

And sorry my response took so long, I'm eating LIFE cereal.
 
2003-04-04 11:18:13 PM
Nanookanano:

Would you feel better if it were a giant inflatable gun?

Or is it only depictions of god-given human organs that offend you?
 
2003-04-04 11:18:39 PM
Ok, I don't know html, but here's a link w/the original story complete w/photo of the dick-mobile.

http://www.kotv.com/pages/viewpage.asp?id=42896
 
2003-04-04 11:19:46 PM
"We need to give the courtroom back to the jury and the judge."

Because you trust the masses to make the 'right decision' (as they've ALWAYS DONE, always), you aren't worried that they'll take your rights. And if you aren't worried, you can't care about them. Interesting.

Eraser8: Point taken. I'll withdraw from this.
 
2003-04-04 11:20:10 PM
I resent being pushed into a crowd, E8.
My contention is that if the rule has become wrong, change it, don't reconstrue it.

And, I do understand the right to bear arms.
you've seen me write about that one before.

I have no problem with using "freedom of expression".
I just want people to understand that it is not a license for anything and everything. After all, violence is an expression of emotion. No?
 
2003-04-04 11:21:27 PM
P.S. In the above mentioned article, Miss Vera Webb makes all of us Tulsans proud by proclaiming she finds it "Un-Appropriate".
 
2003-04-04 11:22:13 PM
I didn't say it offended or could offend me, Abzzstain.
I said it was inappropriate to cycle up and down the street in front of children with it.

But . . "fark everybody else, I'm gonna do whatever I want because I have a right". Is that your point?
 
2003-04-04 11:24:02 PM
"trust the masses"

Hahahahaha! The arguement of the egotistical elitist.

Yes, I trust twelve good men and true. Yes, I do.

But, you want your lawyer saying, "My precedent can beat up your precedent." I understand.
 
2003-04-04 11:28:08 PM
Nanookanano, I'm not pushing you into any crowd. You got there on your own. My point is that arguing that the Constitution doesn't protect freedom of expression because that exact phrase doesn't appear is as silly as arguing that the Constitution doesn't protect the right to own guns for the common defense because the word "gun" is absent from the document.

The principle that acts of expression are to be regarded as a form of speech is as old as (if not older than) the constitution itself. And, while few have argued that the first admendment gives absolute immunity to any act of expression, it is a settled constitutional rule that "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive of disagreeable."
 
2003-04-04 11:29:47 PM
Nanookanano - "Yes, I have no problem with your being arrested for that."


Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas today!

Sorry, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read that...carry on.
 
2003-04-04 11:32:12 PM
See, you've already called his giant dick "expression" and that it serves to communicate an idea. So the point is lost on you, even though you are at a loss to tell me what that idea is, you're sure it's some form of communication.

I say it's just a big plastic dick.

This Cult Of Individuality is beginning to wear thin.
 
2003-04-04 11:33:24 PM
I have to go mix my partially digested cereal with Scotch, but in summation:

*Procedural law is there for a reason; it protects against corruption and sustains fairness of law (hence the blindfold on Lady Justice). Consider the Constitution the all powerful precedent.
*Laws must change, because everything else does. Had precedents not been in play, this country would have been renamed "United States of Rockefeller" long ago. Steamboats would be the "modern" form of transportation. The "negro" would have to drink from a certain water fountain. Ad infinitum.
*What you consider obscene may not be to someone else. Not grouping you in this crowd, but...some Southern Baptists would find his display reprehensible, while the same could be said for their placards and billboards showing aborted fetuses.
*Juries, as a collective group, are morons. Check out what this wonderful group of 12 has done to malpractice insurance. They think any trial is a lottery, and can be easily swayed by whomever has the best lawyer.
*Inflatable cocks are funny.

Later all.
 
2003-04-04 11:34:34 PM
Do 12 good men exist in this world? Maybe. Will they all be selected for your jury? I wouldn't bet on it.

/not one of the 12
 
2003-04-04 11:35:19 PM
And, in typical form for YOUR CROWD, you assume that I take the stance that "everything that is not forbidden is mandatory". Which is a crock of shiat.

Do you really believe that this guy is expressing some idea with this, or are you just defending the outre so that your options remain as wide as possible.
 
2003-04-04 11:37:21 PM
it is a settled constitutional rule that "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive of disagreeable."

Settled by what?
Precedent. The gradual erosion of precedent.
 
2003-04-04 11:40:56 PM
I have no problem with the proper citation of precedental cases. But the process seem to me to have gotten way out of hand. Juries can no longer be trusted precisely because lawyers tell them how to respond to the case in question by presenting . . previous judgements. If they could be made to leave the decision to the jury, rather than telling them how to think, the jury system might work.

If you treat people like sheep, the'll act like sheep.
 
2003-04-04 11:43:38 PM
fark it.

The only way I could 'win this case' is if I was a lawyer.
Knowing the rules is all that counts these days.

We're all going to hell in a handbasket.
Pardon me for screaming on the way down.
 
2003-04-04 11:47:41 PM
Nanookanano:

Are the following things protected by the First Amendment in your world?

1. Black armbands
2. Cross burning
3. Flag burning, flying flag upside down, flag on ass of jeans
4. Effigies


And as for precedent...the right to use birth control, the right to have abortions, integration and the general "right to privacy" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. So if anyone enjoys those things, you can thank court-made law and then reliance on those precedents--not the will of the people or the legislature.
 
2003-04-04 11:51:25 PM
Nanookanano:

Juries aren't stupid. If they are, it's their own fault, and not "the system's." I sure wouldn't prefer the European, civil law system, where judge, prosecutor and defense attorney all get paid by the government, and all get paid the same, no matter what the outcome of the case is. That's a recipe for not caring. God bless our adversarial system.
 
2003-04-04 11:56:06 PM
I'm not saying the use of precedent is bad.
Only people can be bad.
And, sometimes the only way to put out a fire is to piss on it.
I just think that the entire justice system should not be run by precedent alone.

And, I live in the same world as you.
Your implications as to the nature of my sanity notwithstanding.
But, burning a cross on somebody's lawn because they're black and you're racist is not covered. Sorry, take your white sheet elsewhere.

I do, however, have a copy of Kipling with two swastikas on the cover. I would use my own good judgement and not take it into a Jewish Temple. That might be tacky and offensive.
 
2003-04-04 11:56:48 PM
You're sure of a lot of things, Millay.
It must be nice. Dangerous, but nice.
 
2003-04-05 12:03:15 AM
Now, if this guy understood Japanese culture, and he paraded this in the appropriate, traditional Japanese parade, that would be another story entirely.

See . . they're actually expressing something, then.

It's a matter of cultural circumstance.
I just don't understand how we've sunk so low as to allow one individual to offend every single other person in our society with out recourse.

The criminals have already won.
 
2003-04-05 12:10:20 AM
Nanookanano:

The entire justice system is not run by precedent. It's also run by legislatively created statute. Is that any better?

Is the public display of an inflatible penis worse than this country's disdain for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments? No.

If you are falsely accused of a crime, who will save you? A judge? The legislature? A Farker posting stuff about how "the masses" are ill-informed because they like NASCAR and don't like NPR? No. You'll call a good defense lawyer to save yourself.
 
2003-04-05 12:15:15 AM
Nanookanano:

"I just don't understand how we've sunk so low as to allow one individual to offend every single other person in our society with out recourse."

And hey...I would think Marxism and America-bashing offend every single other person in America, but i'm not out to muffle such clowns...I'm confident reason will win in the end, and also confident that making laws to muffle such clowns hurts us all in the long run, thanks to the law of unintended consequences.
 
2003-04-05 12:18:05 AM
"Tulsa, OK" backward is "KO a slut".

I'm just the messenger.
 
2003-04-05 12:19:02 AM
Marxism and America bashing actually have a goal.

Just what is this guy's goal?
Does he state it somewhere?
 
2003-04-05 12:20:29 AM
That's exactly right, Millay.
To get justice you have to pay a defence lawyer his 100 dollars an hour.
That's exactly right. Isn't it great?
 
2003-04-05 12:26:22 AM
Forget all this legal crap.
The law is an ass.
I'm not trying to say this should be illegal.
God know we have too many laws as is.
I'm not saying he should be prevented from doing this.
I love my freedom. And (believe it or not) I'll respect yours.

My issue is that he should not be doing this.
That is all. And I have a right to say it.
 
2003-04-05 12:26:32 AM
Nanookanano:

First, whatever goals advanced by displaying an inflatable penis are 1000% more worthy thans the goals advanced by Marxism and America bashing.

Second, some public defenders do care.

Third, to get justice, a little innocence will go a long way.

I think there's a little more to your critique than cliched lawyer-bashing, but I've yet to see the meat of it yet. I guess just because Thurgood Marshall got a little bread for Brown v. Board of Education he's a slime...and Clarence Darrow, and Sacco & Vanzetti's defense attorneys...they're all high-priced scum as well? Feh. Everyone gets a defense. That's as American as apple pie.
 
2003-04-05 12:28:32 AM
Nanookanano:

"God know we have too many laws as is.
I'm not saying he should be prevented from doing this.
I love my freedom. And (believe it or not) I'll respect yours."

Yes, we have far too many laws. But if you respected our freedom, you wouldn't throw up your hands and leave things to prosecutors and judges.
 
2003-04-05 01:00:45 AM
So, if I have a problem with this one guy sporting a giant penis in public as if to say "Woohoo! Look at me! I'm being an obscene, offensive asshole, and there's nothing anybody can do about it!" then I have damned every lawyer that ever lived? If I percieve a problem with a justice system that protects an asshole like this, and express it on Fark, then I'm somehow threatening this idiot's freedom? Concerns about the way we define freedom of speech shouldn't be voiced? America should not listen to, and pay attention to the opinion of neighboring countries, so it can become better? Tzardom is better than Marxism? Spanish Fascism is better than Communism?

(BTW: Leopold and Loeb both got what they deserved. One got killed in prison, the other served his lengthy term and emerged a reformed man. Darrow was a great lawyer.)
 
2003-04-05 01:04:16 AM
I just want judges that judge, not just referee.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report