This sort of unbridled meat-thinkery - what's next? I won't be forced into a conceptual world of fries.

Wanted for questioning:

Man arrested for thinking about cheeseburgers violating a city begging ordinance.

While I disagree with him being arrested for begging, lets stick to reality here.

No you can't has cheezburger.

Not yours.

See, it takes years standing near an underpass to learn to game the system. He made a rookie mistake: admitting he was thinking about a cheeseburger. No- the correct, semantic way of legally getting around thought-crime legislation is subtle dishonesty, like holding a sign that says "are YOU thinking about a cheeseburger?" or "who is thinking about cheeseburgers?", never using the committal "I".

bighasbeen: Yet again, the homeless beat the system!

CURSE YOU LUCKY DUCKY!!1!

Bathia_Mapes: Reality? On fark? That's crazy talk!

No, TFA.

"McLaughlin was charged with unlawful solicitation under the city ordinance and was jailed under a $500 secured bond."

On the double-plus good side, he'll soon be put to work packing fudge which should lead to an increase in his chocolate rations.

jaylectricity: Who would want that thing?

Who has two thumbs and isn't picky?

I'd never seen the sexual connotation's in the Arby's logo until just now.
... It is rather disturbing

I'm thinking of a cheeseburger from Backyard Burger.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Man arrested for thinking about cheeseburgers violating a city begging ordinance.

While I disagree with him being arrested for begging, lets stick to reality here.

Trollish headline is trollish

Thinkin' about Cheeseburgers is legal, right?

Yeah, thinking of a cheeseburger is legal, but it ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean, you can't put up a sign about it, just start thinkin' away. You're only supposed to ponder burgers in your home or certain designated places.

I wonder what happens when you hold up a sign that says "I'm thinking about p*ssy"?


/The back would say "And so are You"

WTF? "Minority Report" much?

thoughtcrime

Britney Spear's Speculum: Man arrested for thinking about cheeseburgers violating a city begging ordinance.

While I disagree with him being arrested for begging, lets stick to reality here.

Well sticking with reality: Having your thoughts printed on a placard and holding it aloft isn't automatically the same thing as begging, even if you do it next to a freeway onramp.

Was he implying he'd like a handout? I'd say yes, but he seems to have found a clever way around the law; at least based on what appears in the report. He should get off better than scott-free and might have a 1st amendment suit on his hands.

Next up: Man sues city for free speech violation under 42 usc 1983, wins, city pays man lots of money.

logruszed: Well sticking with reality: Having your thoughts printed on a placard and holding it aloft isn't automatically the same thing as begging, even if you do it next to a freeway onramp.

Which is why I disagree with him being arrested in the first place.

Gastonia City Ordinance 5-17 makes it unlawful for anyone to beg or offer to work for money or other compensation by "accosting one another or forcing oneself upon the company of another." The citation did not state whether McLaughlin had been approaching vehicles.

These people should go on strike and bust up those scab losers.

logruszed: Britney Spear's Speculum: Man arrested for thinking about cheeseburgers violating a city begging ordinance.

While I disagree with him being arrested for begging, lets stick to reality here.

Well sticking with reality: Having your thoughts printed on a placard and holding it aloft isn't automatically the same thing as begging, even if you do it next to a freeway onramp.

Was he implying he'd like a handout? I'd say yes, but he seems to have found a clever way around the law; at least based on what appears in the report. He should get off better than scott-free and might have a 1st amendment suit on his hands.

Will you help me beat a speeding ticket? I suck at law talk and law know.

I was thinking about cheeseburgers the other day. Don't hate, but if you do I understand.


/I don't know who posted this the other day, but I like it
//Makes one smile

its great to live in this socialist police state.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Man arrested for thinking about cheeseburgers violating a city begging ordinance.

While I disagree with him being arrested for begging, lets stick to reality here.

Versus "buy me a cheese burger?" What if his sign said "I'm thinking of clouds?"

signedlongint: Versus "buy me a cheese burger?" What if his sign said "I'm thinking of clouds?"

He was arrested for that the officer deemed begging (I disagree with this). If his sign said "buy me (insert whatever here)" then I would agree that he violated the ordinance (should he have been arrested still? no). His sign was no different than "I'm thinking of clouds."

What's so hard to understand here?

I was looking for some general reference to go by. It looks like as a general rule panhandling laws fail on a federal level.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-14438633.html
N.Y. State Court of Appeals: City of Rochester panhandling law upheld

An ordinance by the City of Rochester prohibiting the solicitation of motorists by panhandlers was found to be constitutional by a unanimous New York State Court of Appeals.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-22-panhandle_N.htm
Cities crack down on panhandling
....Some panhandling laws have been struck down because of free speech issues. Cities find ways to get around that.

In 1996, the Oregon Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting panhandling along state roads, saying begging is protected speech.

New rules banning panhandling at intersections in Medford and Roseburg are cast as traffic ordinances...........

http://media.www.dailyorange.com/media/storage/paper522/news/2005/11/30/Pulp/Br o ther.Can.You.Spare.A.Dime.Panhandlers.Work.To.Make.A.Life.On.Su.Streets-1115878. shtml
........New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on panhandling; it has indicated in other rulings that begging is a protected form of expression, Young said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, whose opinions are binding for New York, Vermont and Connecticut, ruled in Loper v. City of New York that panhandling is expressive conduct that can't be regulated.

http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2647:panha n dling-law-hampers-buskers&catid=38:music&Itemid=399
However, a federal appeals court recently ruled that busking is not begging since the person giving the money is paying for a service. In a case called Berger v. Seattle, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "speech that solicits funds is protected by the First Amendment."

Fort Worth has no specific ordinance regulating busking. The police are using the city's panhandling ordinance to address busking. Both Cordell and Sgt. Pedro Criado, a Fort Worth Police Department spokesperson, said they were unfamiliar with the Seattle case and would not comment.

http://jackiedowd.blogspot.com/2007/01/panhandling-law-needs-minor-fix.html
A Cincinnati law requiring people to register before begging for money was found unconstitutional, but a tweak to the law's language is all that's needed to correct the problem.

Otherwise the controversial panhandling registry does not violate the First Amendment, an Ohio appeals court determined. The law restricting when and where people can panhandle is fine and even making them register for a license is OK.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/city-strives-to-comply-with-panhandling-law/55648 /
A federal judge will spare the city from being found in contempt of court even though it long ignored a court order to stop enforcing an anti-panhandling law. In 1993, a federal appellate court found the state statute against panhandling to be unconstitutional. Nonetheless, in the last four years, the city has used the defunct law to issue summonses more than 1,500 times and arrest and prosecute more than 50 people.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/31/local/me-48640
A federal court judge barred Los Angeles from enforcing its new anti-panhandling law Thursday, saying the 3-month-old ordinance outlawing aggressive begging is discriminatory because it applies only to people soliciting money.

upright_apes_r_us: I was looking for some general reference to go by. It looks like as a general rule panhandling laws fail on a federal level.


Given just the facts in the article and no guessing about anything else, he was just holding a sign, 1st amendment protected. Holding the sign in and of itself is not panhandling under the previously cited law he was alleged to have violated.

I think it highly likely that a cop saw a guy with a sign near an off ramp and decided to call it panhandling. I also think it likely that the guy was approaching cars either getting something or asking for something. Short of more information you cant know.

So the law itself may be upheld but you cant just arrest people for a sign despite my belief that the 1st amendment says "Congress shall pass no law" and that means what is defined in Article I and not the states. The bill of rights which were done all about the same time use the word "people", "congress", "state" and such in a clear way.

My belief is that the 1st prevents things like the FTC, FDA, FCC, FBI and others from being able to go after people for spoken things, however the states can go after people for "truth in advertising", "medical claims", "obscenities" and all the other things that the FBI does. It also means that there can be a state religion (like Mass had way back when) and if people dont like it they can go to another state. If there is no nationalization that occurs, there will be differences in different states. Those that pass laws the people object to will either have government officials replaced or the people will leave. If they leave commerce/business goes with them, which of course means that state coffers will diminish. The states will be forced to change the laws just to get businesses and others to come back so they can have some revenue to be able to run things again, or they will become failed states and a new government will replace them.

Now back to this case. I think the 1st amendment clearly gives the state the ability to ban speech like this, however that is not how its interpreted or how the law is written. The guy may not have violated the law, but being homeless it is likely he will get a public defender, which means they will push him to plead guilty and not want to appeal this on first amendment grounds.

Came for the Randy. Leaving happy

McLaughlin was charged with unlawful solicitation under the city ordinance and was jailed under a $500 secured bond.

And this is why vagrancy laws were stripped off the books in the first place. Not so much because people can end up doing significant jail time for simply being an eyesore, but because the Podunk taxpayers eventually figure out who's flipping the bill for this guy's 3 hots and a cot; and with tightfisted yokels, cheapness trumps civic pride every time.

trixter_nl: Those that pass laws the people object to will either have government officials replaced or the people will leave. If they leave commerce/business goes with them, which of course means that state coffers will diminish.

I'm sure the homeless guy with the voting card and his commerce will be missed by the government.

trippdogg: McLaughlin was charged with unlawful solicitation under the city ordinance and was jailed under a $500 secured bond.

And this is why vagrancy laws were stripped off the books in the first place. Not so much because people can end up doing significant jail time for simply being an eyesore, but because the Podunk taxpayers eventually figure out who's flipping the bill for this guy's 3 hots and a cot; and with tightfisted yokels, cheapness trumps civic pride every time.

hey now, think about it from this guys perspective. He was homeless, had little to no money and a dream (of a cheeseburger). Now he is forced into a jail where they force 3 meals a day on him and demand that he go to his room with a bed of his own each night in a climate controlled building. They also provide some recreation, television, and library. Odds are there are board games and cards for him as well.


The difference is, instead of asking for charity from individuals the state has jumped in and forced "charity" upon him. How dare people go around the state and freely give to people they feel need it, no it is the states job to disburse welfare checks and force people into a building and feed them and provide entertainment.

really... no one?

Tawnos: Next up: Man sues city for free speech violation under 42 usc 1983, wins, city pays man lots of money.

Man then buys 10,000 cheeseburgers.

upright_apes_r_us:

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/oct/31/local/me-48640
A federal court judge barred Los Angeles from enforcing its new anti-panhandling law Thursday, saying the 3-month-old ordinance outlawing aggressive begging is discriminatory because it applies only to people soliciting money.


So.... who else is it supposed to apply to?

Does this mean, for example, that:

...a law against robbing banks is discriminatory because it applies only to people robbing banks?

...a law against dumping oil in storm drains is discriminatory because it applies only to people dumping oil in storm drains?

...they are now appointing retards as federal judges?

Willis13: Came for the Randy. Leaving happy

Thats what Mr. Leahey said.

At night I have these wonderful dreams...

I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz 57 and french fried potatoes, a big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer

/not in paradise
//please don't taze me when you take me away