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.

(Cincinnati Enquirer)   The assault on the First Amendment continues as court rules that you can't falsely yell "Bingo" in a crowded bingo hall   (nky.cincinnati.com) divider line 99
    More: Silly, 1st amendment, regulations, Infraction  
•       •       •

4236 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 12:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 01:14:04 PM

fawlty: well, excuse me, it was in the US.  The place and court names seemed British to me. The punishment also seemed like something a British court would do. Never even noticed the Cinci reference.

Sheesh, what a bad punishment.


ha - agreed on all counts.
 
2013-03-19 01:15:21 PM
Calling bingo is never without hazard. During a bingo night in a local bar (you got one bingo form per beer) I had 3 bingos spread over my 5 bingo forms. Some people looked like they were ready to lynch me.
 
2013-03-19 01:18:10 PM

Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: You guys are what is wrong with free speech.

how do you figure?

You defend its abuse.  That perverts its purpose, which is not "to enable assholes to be assholes."

it's not government's responsibility or right to make you a better person.  I don't believe you can make a reasonable case for criminal mischief, disturbance of the peace, disorderly conduct or any of the other anti-social behavior type crimes on him calling out Bingo one time.  If he did it more than once then that's another story - but a one off stupid joke?  yes, the purpose of the 1st amendment may not have been "to enable assholes to be assholes" but that is definitely a necessary component in serving what it was intended to do: stop government from making laws that infringe upon the freedom of speech.


Why is it important to prevent government from infringing upon the freedom of speech?  The answer helps to define  what speech deserves protection. Greater legal scholars than you have determined that is not necessary to tolerate all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech.

9/11 was a one-off, too.  Many people thought it was funny.
 
2013-03-19 01:25:08 PM
This is weird. Everyone is wrong, including the judge, in considering this a "fire" in a crowded theater free speech issue.

It doesn't really matter WHAT the kid was saying, They crashed a bingo game and created a disturbance, a public nuisance, and disordely conduct. It makes no difference if they had been yelling Yahtzee! or poop!

And "Don't say the word "bingo" for six months? What the hell kangaroo court is that? How about "don't make a public nuisance of yourself for 6 months or you will spend a weekend in jail until you learn to stop ackin' a fool."
 
2013-03-19 01:26:14 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: You guys are what is wrong with free speech.

how do you figure?

You defend its abuse.  That perverts its purpose, which is not "to enable assholes to be assholes."

it's not government's responsibility or right to make you a better person.  I don't believe you can make a reasonable case for criminal mischief, disturbance of the peace, disorderly conduct or any of the other anti-social behavior type crimes on him calling out Bingo one time.  If he did it more than once then that's another story - but a one off stupid joke?  yes, the purpose of the 1st amendment may not have been "to enable assholes to be assholes" but that is definitely a necessary component in serving what it was intended to do: stop government from making laws that infringe upon the freedom of speech.

Why is it important to prevent government from infringing upon the freedom of speech?  The answer helps to define  what speech deserves protection. Greater legal scholars than you have determined that is not necessary to tolerate all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech.

9/11 was a one-off, too.  Many people thought it was funny.


and should those people be criminally prosecuted?
i am not advocating tolerating "all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech"
you are using some highly subjective language in your appeal to emotion argument.

i'm not claiming this idiot is a 1st amendment hero, i am claiming that prosecuting him criminally is even stupider than he is.
 
2013-03-19 01:26:17 PM
Don't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater.

Don't yell GUN! in a crowded police station.

Don't yell LA MIGRA! in a crowded Mexican market.


/Think of the children
 
2013-03-19 01:31:06 PM
Had Whaley apologized for his actions, (Police Officer) Webster said he probably would have sent him on his way with a warning. "But he refused to say he was sorry,"

He wouldn't even apologize? The kid was being a jerk and got off easy. There is free speech, and then there is douchebag speech. I'm not saying he should have had any jail time, but I would have at least given him the $250 fine.
 
2013-03-19 01:34:36 PM

dopekitty74: where the hell do you go to bingo at? O_o


Hehe...I've never played bingo, but I listen to the Radio Rashy podcast which was talking about Las Vegas bingo halls for a few minutes last week.
 
2013-03-19 01:38:28 PM

Amos Quito: Don't yell LA MIGRA! in a crowded Mexican market.


Since the market is in Mexico why would they care?
 
2013-03-19 01:45:42 PM

Amos Quito: Don't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater.

Don't yell GUN! in a crowded police station.

Don't yell LA MIGRA! in a crowded Mexican market.


/Think of the children


And don't yell REPUBLICAN at a fark party!
 
2013-03-19 01:46:45 PM

Pathman: are you equating using profanity and talking about sex in front of children with yelling bingo as a joke?


Let me try a different example. Guy walks into a cemetery at a graveside service, and openly starts sobbing loudly and saying things like, "OHhhhh Lordyyy Jesus no! They took him to SOOON!" He doesn't know the deceased or the family. He is asked to leave but says he has a right to be there and it's free speech. Similarly, the kid yelling bingo "as a joke" isn't behavior that needs to be tolerated. And when confronted, he even tried to argue that he was within his rights to do what he did because of free speech. fark him. I'd press charges too. I don't care if it is free speech or not, I care that the person is being an ass, and we don't need to tolerate that in society. Organize protests? Great. Write an article critical of government? Have at it. March for a cause? Have fun. Run around yelling things for the sole purpose of being annoying and entertaining yourself at others' expense? No. If it helps you understand what most people already can plainly see, don't look at it as charging the kid for yelling Bingo, but charging him for intentionally disturbing the peace through disorderly conduct. That's a crime right? My goodness, yes it is! It's what they charged him with! How about that.
 
2013-03-19 01:59:53 PM
He wasn't even arrested for shouting bingo, he was arrested for "not apologizing" as the arresting officer readily admits. This is just yet another case of an Authority Man looking to "teach a lesson" to those that don't "follow the rules".  The sad fact is you can be arrested by a police officer for any reason whatsoever and no constitutional right, free speech, or otherwise, is going to get in their way.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-19 02:03:55 PM

WinoRhino: I'd press charges too. I don't care if it is free speech or not, I care that the person is being an ass,



I really don't even know where to begin with this topic, and some of the totally ignorant posters who have NO IDEA just how important our Constitution and the First Amendment really is. Oh, I could invoke the "slippery slope" argument, I could site the tyrannies of the past, Hell, I could even bring up all the men and woman who have given their lives to insure you have the RIGHT to be an ass, but if you don't understand just how wrong it is to criminalize such speech, I can't even bother to argue with you.

I cannot believe the ACLU would let this one pass. It seems like a slam dunk win for them.
 
2013-03-19 02:06:05 PM

WinoRhino: Pathman: are you equating using profanity and talking about sex in front of children with yelling bingo as a joke?

Let me try a different example. Guy walks into a cemetery at a graveside service, and openly starts sobbing loudly and saying things like, "OHhhhh Lordyyy Jesus no! They took him to SOOON!" He doesn't know the deceased or the family. He is asked to leave but says he has a right to be there and it's free speech. Similarly, the kid yelling bingo "as a joke" isn't behavior that needs to be tolerated. And when confronted, he even tried to argue that he was within his rights to do what he did because of free speech. fark him. I'd press charges too. I don't care if it is free speech or not, I care that the person is being an ass, and we don't need to tolerate that in society. Organize protests? Great. Write an article critical of government? Have at it. March for a cause? Have fun. Run around yelling things for the sole purpose of being annoying and entertaining yourself at others' expense? No. If it helps you understand what most people already can plainly see, don't look at it as charging the kid for yelling Bingo, but charging him for intentionally disturbing the peace through disorderly conduct. That's a crime right? My goodness, yes it is! It's what they charged him with! How about that.


If someone is asked to leave a cemetery and don't then that person is no trespassing   You have no "right" to be on private property.  And once again, i think you could make a reasonable case demonstrating that someone screaming out that nonsense at a funeral would know full and well the negative effects it would cause and the hardship it would impose on the victims.  I don't think you could make the same case for shouting bingo at a bingohall.

It's like people who sneak in a whistle to a sporting event.  Toss em, if they refuse to leave then they're trespassing.  If they aren't asked to leave but continue to do it then maybe you can get them for disturbing the peace etc - but one time?  no way.

the bar should be higher than it is for restricting rights - and i don't think putting a stop to assholary is where the bar should be.  The government exists to protect the borders, protect contracts and to protect rights.  The government does not exist to regulate morality.  I'd rather live in a world where we have to suffer a few pricks like this guy than in one where the government regulates morality.  There are obviously reasons for things like prior restraint and limitations to all of our rights - usually to protect the rights of others as in the case of shouting fire in a theater.   this isn't one of them.  you don't have a right to people not being an asshole
 
2013-03-19 02:07:26 PM

Pathman: i'm not sure what you yet, but YOU are what's wrong with something or other.


who can argue with that?

images3.wikia.nocookie.net

;-)
 
2013-03-19 02:12:04 PM
 
2013-03-19 02:13:49 PM

Bravo Two: Amos Quito: Don't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater.

Don't yell GUN! in a crowded police station.

Don't yell LA MIGRA! in a crowded Mexican market.


/Think of the children

And don't yell REPUBLICAN at a fark party!



No one would believe you.

You might as well yell SASQUATCH!
 
2013-03-19 02:21:10 PM

ChuDogg: He wasn't even arrested for shouting bingo, he was arrested for "not apologizing" as the arresting officer readily admits. This is just yet another case of an Authority Man looking to "teach a lesson" to those that don't "follow the rules".  The sad fact is you can be arrested by a police officer for any reason whatsoever and no constitutional right, free speech, or otherwise, is going to get in their way.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x457]


to be fair, i'm not sure that he was actually arrested...the article doesn't say.  that would be even more ridiculous.  i suspect he was given a citation.
 
2013-03-19 02:21:56 PM

Pathman: ChuDogg: He wasn't even arrested for shouting bingo, he was arrested for "not apologizing" as the arresting officer readily admits. This is just yet another case of an Authority Man looking to "teach a lesson" to those that don't "follow the rules".  The sad fact is you can be arrested by a police officer for any reason whatsoever and no constitutional right, free speech, or otherwise, is going to get in their way.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x457]

to be fair, i'm not sure that he was actually arrested...the article doesn't say.  that would be even more ridiculous.  i suspect he was given a citation.


Six of one = half a dozen of another
 
2013-03-19 02:29:12 PM

redmid17: Pathman: ChuDogg: He wasn't even arrested for shouting bingo, he was arrested for "not apologizing" as the arresting officer readily admits. This is just yet another case of an Authority Man looking to "teach a lesson" to those that don't "follow the rules".  The sad fact is you can be arrested by a police officer for any reason whatsoever and no constitutional right, free speech, or otherwise, is going to get in their way.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x457]

to be fair, i'm not sure that he was actually arrested...the article doesn't say.  that would be even more ridiculous.  i suspect he was given a citation.

Six of one = half a dozen of another


but not really though. this ruling only violates 1 of his constitutional rights....
 
2013-03-19 02:59:29 PM

WinoRhino: This wasn't a first amendment issue. This is a disorderly conduct issue. He went in, yelled bingo with the intent to cause disruption and ruin people's enjoyment. If that's not clear to anyone they're simply being intentionally ignorant.


So kick him out. Listen to what you're saying.  A judge found someone guilty, criminally, of not being sorry that this one time he cost a few people a few minutes of confusion and made them enjoy their game a little less.  Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

The guy in the elevator, that ruins your quiet moment because being absolutely inappropriate, even with anatomical descriptions?  That should be a criminal offense?
 
2013-03-19 03:24:54 PM

ChipNASA: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x583]

/that, oh....and "Ni!"


you can't spell 'Semprini' without 'Ni'

leonel: "The problem with this country is that old farks vote. We got stuff to do, old folks don't, the only thing they have to do is judge you and vote."
- Doug Stanhope


this
 
2013-03-19 03:25:01 PM

Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: You guys are what is wrong with free speech.

how do you figure?

You defend its abuse.  That perverts its purpose, which is not "to enable assholes to be assholes."

it's not government's responsibility or right to make you a better person.  I don't believe you can make a reasonable case for criminal mischief, disturbance of the peace, disorderly conduct or any of the other anti-social behavior type crimes on him calling out Bingo one time.  If he did it more than once then that's another story - but a one off stupid joke?  yes, the purpose of the 1st amendment may not have been "to enable assholes to be assholes" but that is definitely a necessary component in serving what it was intended to do: stop government from making laws that infringe upon the freedom of speech.

Why is it important to prevent government from infringing upon the freedom of speech?  The answer helps to define  what speech deserves protection. Greater legal scholars than you have determined that is not necessary to tolerate all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech.

9/11 was a one-off, too.  Many people thought it was funny.

and should those people be criminally prosecuted?
i am not advocating tolerating "all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech"
you are using some highly subjective language in your appeal to emotion argument.

i'm not claiming this idiot is a 1st amendment hero, i am claiming that prosecuting him criminally is even stupider than he is.


I was not making an argument.  I was ridiculing yours, selecting one bit of the entirely ridiculous paragraph.  I could have chosen your very first premise: "it's not government's responsibility or right to make you a better person."

The asshole did not acknowledge his error when it was pointed out to him informally; he continued to think that disrupting other people's lives is harmless fun.  Additional measures were taken to impress upon him the error of his ways.  Nothing stupid about that.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:13 PM

WinoRhino: This. It's amazing to listen to people interpret the first amendment in a vacuum with no regard for context or proper behavior in society. "Hurr durr I have free speech! I can go to a park where there are dozens of children playing and loudly converse about sex while cursing! It's my RIGHT!"


It is their right.  What people (and farkers especially) fail to understand is that legal and illegal are not synonyms for right and wrong, or for proper and improper.  Interpretation of the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with the issue.  It's perfectly legal for me to start introducing my girlfriend to people as "the talking coontflap".  That doesn't make it right, proper, polite, or anything close to a good idea.
 
2013-03-19 03:51:51 PM

TheOtherMisterP: Had Whaley apologized for his actions, (Police Officer) Webster said he probably would have sent him on his way with a warning. "But he refused to say he was sorry,"

There is free speech, and then there is douchebag speech.


No.
 
2013-03-19 03:59:19 PM

BSABSVR: TheOtherMisterP: Had Whaley apologized for his actions, (Police Officer) Webster said he probably would have sent him on his way with a warning. "But he refused to say he was sorry,"

There is free speech, and then there is douchebag speech.

No.


I cannot pinpoint why you hold that opinion.  Perhaps there is disagreement over the meaning of "douchebag."  Perhaps you are ignorant or contemptuous of First Amendment jurisprudence.
 
2013-03-19 04:04:16 PM
 
2013-03-19 04:06:57 PM

Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?


If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.
 
2013-03-19 04:09:43 PM
FTFA: This delayed the game by several minutes

That's a fair trade: inconvenience some old farts for a few minutes and get:
* 90 days in jail
* a criminal record that will disqualilfy you from the military, college loan money and who knows what else.

/ But Rand Paul grants illegal aliens amnesty.
 
2013-03-19 04:14:06 PM

Omnivorous: FTFA: This delayed the game by several minutes

That's a fair trade: inconvenience some old farts for a few minutes and get:
* 90 days in jail
* a criminal record that will disqualilfy you from the military, college loan money and who knows what else.


LOL!  None of the above is true.
 
2013-03-19 04:33:45 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BSABSVR: TheOtherMisterP: Had Whaley apologized for his actions, (Police Officer) Webster said he probably would have sent him on his way with a warning. "But he refused to say he was sorry,"

There is free speech, and then there is douchebag speech.

No.

I cannot pinpoint why you hold that opinion.  Perhaps there is disagreement over the meaning of "douchebag."  Perhaps you are ignorant or contemptuous of First Amendment jurisprudence.


"Perhaps" I am.  But I'm not.   Similarly, "perhaps" I had a threesome last night with Selena Gomez and my high school psychology teacher.

Look, I know you are an idiot, a hypocrite  and  almost absurdly dishonest in how you interact with people, so I'm not going to engage you on this, much like I have no interest in engaging you on just about anything.  I made a post above regarding legal vs right.

Being a douchebag is legal (luckily for you).  Saying douchey things is protected.  That has no bearing on whether or not it is right.   I can legally publish a blog about how much I hate my job and my wife and my friends.  It's a douchey thing to do and a bad goddamned idea, but it's protected speech.

Perhaps you should go fark yourself now.
 
2013-03-19 04:37:24 PM

BSABSVR: BarkingUnicorn: BSABSVR: TheOtherMisterP: Had Whaley apologized for his actions, (Police Officer) Webster said he probably would have sent him on his way with a warning. "But he refused to say he was sorry,"

There is free speech, and then there is douchebag speech.

No.

I cannot pinpoint why you hold that opinion.  Perhaps there is disagreement over the meaning of "douchebag."  Perhaps you are ignorant or contemptuous of First Amendment jurisprudence.

"Perhaps" I am.  But I'm not.   Similarly, "perhaps" I had a threesome last night with Selena Gomez and my high school psychology teacher.

Look, I know you are an idiot, a hypocrite  and  almost absurdly dishonest in how you interact with people, so I'm not going to engage you on this, much like I have no interest in engaging you on just about anything.  I made a post above regarding legal vs right.

Being a douchebag is legal (luckily for you).  Saying douchey things is protected.  That has no bearing on whether or not it is right.   I can legally publish a blog about how much I hate my job and my wife and my friends.  It's a douchey thing to do and a bad goddamned idea, but it's protected speech.

Perhaps you should go fark yourself now.


So the truth is, "all of the above."  We disagree on what "douchebag" means (although I was actually referring to "douchebag speech) and you are ignorant and contemptuous of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Thanks for resolving my puzzlement.
 
2013-03-19 04:50:19 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: You guys are what is wrong with free speech.

how do you figure?

You defend its abuse.  That perverts its purpose, which is not "to enable assholes to be assholes."

it's not government's responsibility or right to make you a better person.  I don't believe you can make a reasonable case for criminal mischief, disturbance of the peace, disorderly conduct or any of the other anti-social behavior type crimes on him calling out Bingo one time.  If he did it more than once then that's another story - but a one off stupid joke?  yes, the purpose of the 1st amendment may not have been "to enable assholes to be assholes" but that is definitely a necessary component in serving what it was intended to do: stop government from making laws that infringe upon the freedom of speech.

Why is it important to prevent government from infringing upon the freedom of speech?  The answer helps to define  what speech deserves protection. Greater legal scholars than you have determined that is not necessary to tolerate all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech.

9/11 was a one-off, too.  Many people thought it was funny.

and should those people be criminally prosecuted?
i am not advocating tolerating "all kinds of assholes to defend deserving speech"
you are using some highly subjective language in your appeal to emotion argument.

i'm not claiming this idiot is a 1st amendment hero, i am claiming that prosecuting him criminally is even stupider than he is.

I was not making an argument.  I was ridiculing yours, selecting one bit of the entirely ridiculous paragraph.  I could have chosen your very first premise: "it's not government's responsibility or right to make you a better person."

The asshole did not acknowledge his error when it was pointed out to him informally; he continued to think that disrupting other people's lives is harmless fun.  Additional measures were taken to impress upon him the erro ...


i'm sorry that i wasn't able to make you understand my point.
 
2013-03-19 04:56:54 PM

Pathman: I'm sorry that i wasn't able to make you understand my point.


Blame it on your parents and teachers.  Sue them.
 
2013-03-19 05:10:02 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.


img.photobucket.com

I LOVE the way you think. You should come work for me.
 
2013-03-19 05:24:35 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: I'm sorry that i wasn't able to make you understand my point.

Blame it on your parents and teachers.  Sue them.


always an option, i don't advocate the erosion of our litigious rights either!
 
2013-03-19 05:36:13 PM

FarkinHostile: BarkingUnicorn: Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.

[img.photobucket.com image 320x320]

I LOVE the way you think. You should come work for me.


I have the right to petition my government for redress of grievances, such as some asshole spoiling my bingo game.  Where'd I put that right?  Oh, here it is, right next to... wow, what a coincidence!
 
2013-03-19 05:49:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.


that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard - somebody should have you arrested.
 
2013-03-19 05:59:55 PM
Police should be banned from working "security".  We pay them to be police not security guards wasting the taxpayers money with complete nonsense like this.

I'm sure someone with medic or emt in their handle will swoop in to tell me about how officers are always officers....that's the point.  If a bingo parlor called 911 to complain about someone calling bingo they would tell them to f-off, maybe even cite them for misuse of the emergency line.
 
2013-03-19 06:32:47 PM

Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard - somebody should have you arrested.


I think it's likely that you will be arrested before I am.
 
2013-03-19 07:31:16 PM
I don't know if I agree with the "yelling fire in a theater" still being considered a limit to free speech.

Back when that ruling was made building codes were practically non-existant, and a theater could be a death trap with one inward opening door serving hunreds of patrons.  There were no alarms or sprinkler systems, and no such thing as fire retartand materials.

Now if someone yelled fire in a theater, I'd be annoyed by the disturbance, but I wouldn't go into a panic, and I don't think it present a clear and present danger anymore.
 
2013-03-19 10:14:22 PM
Its anti-racketeering.
 
2013-03-19 10:55:22 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard - somebody should have you arrested.

I think it's likely that you will be arrested before I am.


whatever, you're the grumpy sod who thinks being an a-hole should be illegal and sees no humour in a kid shouting bingo around a bunch of blue-hairs.
 
2013-03-20 01:05:16 AM

fawlty: given that this happened in the UK, there is no 1st Amendment issue


Uh, hello? Look at the judge in the picture. Do you see a funny wig?
 
2013-03-20 01:54:09 AM
Just hold up this pic-
images.nationalgeographic.com
-and yell "dingo!"
 
2013-03-20 02:28:07 AM

Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Pathman: BarkingUnicorn: Mr Guy: Do you really believe you should be allowed to criminally prosecute everyone that confuses and mildly annoys you, for, in their own words, up to a couple minutes?

If it was intentional and they don't see anything wrong with it, yes.  Such was this case.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard - somebody should have you arrested.

I think it's likely that you will be arrested before I am.

whatever, you're the grumpy sod who thinks being an a-hole should be illegal and sees no humour in a kid shouting bingo around a bunch of blue-hairs.


And damned proud of it.  You, in turn, are the callow catamite who can't see the humor in a douchebag learning that his sense of humor and interpretation of the First Amendment are wrong.
 
2013-03-20 05:50:12 AM
What about yelling "tomatoe" in a crowded theater?
 
2013-03-20 07:58:03 AM

BarkingUnicorn: And damned proud of it.  You, in turn, are the callow catamite who can't see the humor in a douchebag learning that his sense of humor and interpretation of the First Amendment are wrong.


oh i definitely see the humour in it, doesn't make it right.  this kid did something stupid - at the very most he should have been kicked out.  it was a silly prank - that's it.  The cop was off-duty, he shouldn't have even been writing citations at all for this kind of nonsense.

Equating this to shouting fire in a theater is idiotic.  And you guys are in here talking about jokes about 9-11, what's wrong with the first amendment and exposing children to profanity and sexual obscenities?  That's so dumb.

No, he shouldn't have done it.  Yes he should have apologized.  So what?  it should have ended there.  Being an asshole shouldn't be against the law.  Violating someone's rights should be against the law & nobody's rights were violated by this kid being a goof.  And since I don't believe that "Oh yeah, well 9-11 was a one off" is in any way even approaching a reasonable retort to "it was a one off thing," i'll say it again: He did it one time and it was no big deal.  No crime was committed here.  I wonder if it's within the scope of the court's power to ban someone from saying the word bingo for 6 months...

What you should do and what you should be forced to do legally are two different things entirely.  I don't think you should cheat on your spouse, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.   This 18 year old stuck his head into a bingo hall, shouted "bingo" and was charged with a crime for it.  Come on, that's stupid.

and catamite...seriously?
 
2013-03-20 04:09:59 PM
sharetv.org

And no fake "housey housey" either.

The day after, people?  Really?  You're slipping.
 
Displayed 49 of 99 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report