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.

(Newsday)   Want to take pictures with a telephoto lens through your neighbors' windows without being arrested or labelled a "creep"? Be an artist and offer the pictures for sale   (newyork.newsday.com) divider line 147
    More: Interesting, Arne Svenson, exchange student, neighbors  
•       •       •

9703 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2013 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 03:29:07 PM

Igor Jakovsky: I used to have an office on the 46th floor in NYC and wondered why people wouldn't close their blinds.


Because they are farking stupid.

I mean look at me. I don't know the difference between civil and criminal law and I can blow holes in an internet lawyers arguments with basic logic.

/would anyone really want Theateatus as their lawyer?
 
2013-05-17 03:30:26 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however.  Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

The privacy fence wasn't high enough to block the neighbor's windows - the point was that a reasonable person would feel it was secluded, even if it was not absolutely photon-tight.

And again, literature, films, TV shows, and cartoons all depict people being seen in high-rise windows. When I look out of a high-rise, I can see through open windows in the high-rise across the street. I have no reasonable expectation of seclusion when I leave my curtains open.

Using a telephoto lens specifically to look into someone's home is different from photographing the face of the building. Specifically, under New York privacy law, there's an "incidental use" doctrine that applies.


Nobody mentioned incidental capture. We're talking about expectation of seclusion. If you leave your windows unobscured, you have no reasonable expectation of seclusion. The same light is bouncing off of someone standing in front of an open window, and that person is visible to the naked eye as well as a camera.

Being behind an open window with open windows across the street shouldn't give any reasonable person a sense of seclusion. If I can see you, you can see me.

As said in TFA: "I think there's an understanding that when you live here with glass windows, there will be straying eyes but it feels different with someone who has a camera," Sylvester said.

See? No sense of seclusion. She's creeped out that someone took pictures, but she didn't expect seclusion.
 
2013-05-17 03:31:27 PM

soosh: Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: When he used a telephoto lens to see through the windows, that went from 'in public view' to invasion of privacy.

No it didn't. It just increased the resolution.

From Webb v. CBS:
Using a telephoto lens, a videotape was then shot from neighbor Tracy Reardon's home depicting the
Webbs, Stebic, Jacobson, and some children in their bathing suits around the Stebic's backyard
pool, which was allegedly surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence.
... we find that the plaintiffs allegations that they were swimming in the backyard pool of a private home surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence are sufficient to allege both that they believed they were in a secluded place and that the activity was private. Finally, we hold that a reasonable person could find that a television cameraman using a telephoto lens to videotape the Webbs and their children in their bathing suits around a private backyard pool to be highly offensive. Accordingly, we find that the Webbs have properly stated a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar. For example, there's a New York case involving paparazzi and JFK's widow and son.

Different states have different laws regarding privacy.


Except if you're a government official, then your privacy is absolute and enforced.
 
2013-05-17 03:34:49 PM

Theaetetus: Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."


That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.
 
2013-05-17 03:37:16 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Being behind an open window with open windows across the street shouldn't give any reasonable person a sense of seclusion. If I can see you, you can see me.


But, that case earlier notes that the people in their backyard were filmed from the neighbors house. Clearly they could see the neighbor's window from their backyard, but the court still found that a reasonable person would consider it secluded.

As said in TFA: "I think there's an understanding that when you live here with glass windows, there will be straying eyes but it feels different with someone who has a camera," Sylvester said.

See? No sense of seclusion. She's creeped out that someone took pictures, but she didn't expect seclusion.


That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.
 
2013-05-17 03:41:01 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.


... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their  invasion of privacy statute.
 
2013-05-17 03:43:57 PM
In other news, how do photographers still charge $7500 for a print?  I can just take that digital image above where the perv photographer caught the hot chick bending over to a print shop and have them print it for me for $50, yeah?
 
2013-05-17 03:44:00 PM

Theaetetus: ... did you stop reading on the first page?


Isn't that your entire basis for posting this stuff?  That people won't read it, and realize that the case law you are posting has nothing at all to do with the case at hand?
 
2013-05-17 03:46:03 PM

LordBeavis: In other news, how do photographers still charge $7500 for a print?


Because people will pay for it.

It's not about what what your art is worth, it's what other people will pay for it that makes you famous.
 
2013-05-17 03:46:32 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.

... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their  invasion of privacy statute.


I was looking directly at p. 3, where it says the plaintiff has to to allege the use of their portrait or likeness for advertising or trade without written permission. You know, right there where the doc says no common-law right to privacy exists in NY law.
 
2013-05-17 03:49:51 PM

Theaetetus: That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.


No it doesn't, not in the least. She states that she knows she's visible through the windows of her building. Therefore, she has no expectation of seclusion. She's saying that it's creepy, not that she had an expectation of seclusion.
 
2013-05-17 03:53:34 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.

... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their  invasion of privacy statute.

I was looking directly at p. 3, where it says the plaintiff has to to allege the use of their portrait or likeness for advertising or trade without written permission. You know, right there where the doc says no common-law right to privacy exists in NY law.


You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?
 
2013-05-17 03:56:45 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.

No it doesn't, not in the least. She states that she knows she's visible through the windows of her building...

but that she never expected to be filmed there.
Therefore, she has no expectation of seclusion. She's saying that it's creepy, not that she had an expectation of seclusion but that she had an expectation that she would not be filmed in her home, as the New York court said was reasonable.

I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.
 
2013-05-17 03:56:58 PM

Theaetetus: You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?


What part of the three prongs are you missing?

Her image was used for trade without a release. This is in no way comparable to TFA's subjects. It doesn't talk about an invasion of privacy, it talks about the commercial use of her face in a film without her permission. If her face or identifiable features would have been obscured, as those in TFA's subjects, she would not have the first prong and she would have lost the case.

These are different things.
 
2013-05-17 04:00:53 PM

Theaetetus: I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.


REASONABLE EXPECTATION. If your bedroom faces the street or other buildings, and you leave your blinds open, a reasonable person would not expect to have seclusion under those circumstances. Windows allow light to pass through them. Reasonable people are aware of that.
 
2013-05-17 04:03:40 PM

umad: mayIFark: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Just trying to mix peeing Tom with creepy uncle.

/Intentional

So you mixed them by using a term that already means something. SMRT.


umad?
 
2013-05-17 04:07:09 PM

Theaetetus: Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however.  Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

The privacy fence wasn't high enough to block the neighbor's windows - the point was that a reasonable person would feel it was secluded, even if it was not absolutely photon-tight.


This has me wondering a legal question: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?
 
2013-05-17 04:10:09 PM
img856.imageshack.us

Could be worse.
 
2013-05-17 04:18:32 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?

What part of the three prongs are you missing?


I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this question... Can you re-ask?

Her image was used for trade without a release. This is in no way comparable to TFA's subjects.

Aren't their images being used in a piece of artwork up for an expensive sale? They certainly didn't sign any releases.

It doesn't talk about an invasion of privacy, it talks about the commercial use of her face in a film without her permission.

... yes, that's one possible way to meet the limitations in the New York invasion of privacy statute. I'm not sure why you think that means it has nothing to do with invasion of privacy.

 If her face or identifiable features would have been obscured, as those in TFA's subjects, she would not have the first prong and she would have lost the case.

The first prong of the statute doesn't require her face, it merely says "picture of any living person". The pictures in the article are of living persons. It certainly meets that element.
Now, you can argue that the statute should be changed to require a recognizable portion, or a face, or anything else, but that's not in the statute.
 
2013-05-17 04:20:57 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.

REASONABLE EXPECTATION. If your bedroom faces the street or other buildings, and you leave your blinds open, a reasonable person would not expect to have seclusion under those circumstances. Windows allow light to pass through them. Reasonable people are aware of that.


In New York, all bedrooms face other buildings. The same is true for most cities and towns, and only is excepted in rare places where there's tons of open land. Are you saying that no person in New York has an expectation of privacy in their bedroom unless they close their blinds to be light-tight, regardless of whether they're on the 1st or 50th floor?
I think most people would disagree.
 
2013-05-17 04:22:17 PM
For example, out my office window right now, I can easily see upwards of ten thousand windows, many of which are bedrooms. Not all of them have tightly pulled drapes. Are you suggesting that I could set up a camera and telescope and freely publish pictures of what I see with impunity?
 
2013-05-17 04:23:54 PM

magicgoo: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?


Yeah. Celebrities are thought to be "newsworthy" people, and so there's more leniency for publishing their pictures.
As a result, states with a large number of celebrities like California have enacted much, much stronger invasion of privacy statutes.
 
2013-05-17 04:25:43 PM

Securitywyrm: ng2810: mayIFark: fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.

Yeah, but seriously, if you have floor-to-ceiling windows like the people who were photographed, do you really think you have privacy? I'm a community emergency responder, and during our city wide disaster training residents were instructed to put OK Signs on their windows/doors that are visible from the street so we know which houses to check for wounded. We would travel our neighborhoods looking through people's windows at night and you wont believe how many people don't farking close their curtains. From a public street I could see anything and everything, and if I wasn't wearing a reflective vest of carrying a high-powered flashlight I could totally be an invisible creep.

/Curtains, seriously!
//Don't care what you do in your home, but if I see stuff just from walking the street, then its your fault, not mine.

I think the big issue here is that he used a telephoto lens. The reasonable expectation of privacy is based on what people, not technology, can see.

For example
You have a six foot opaque fence around your backyard. Someone walks up to the edge of your fence and uses a camera mounted on a pole to take pictures of your children playing in the backyard.
You're wearing a sheer dress, and someone uses a thermal camera to effectively get a picture of you in your underwear.
You close your curtains, but there's a tiny gap on the edge. Someone uses  a telephoto lens from just the right angle to film you in your room.
If you're shouting a conversation in your house, there isn't a reasonable expectation that other people won't hear. What if I h ...


Interesting point but on the other hand, telephoto lenses and binoculars are as old as dirt at this point. It's not exactly new fangled technology that nobody knows about.
 
2013-05-17 04:53:00 PM

magicgoo: This has me wondering a legal question: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?


Well, this wouldn't be a first ammendment issue.  It would amount to harrassment, which is one of many exceptions to the first ammendment.
 
2013-05-17 04:53:32 PM
If this is permissible then I can't see the objection to cops obtaining cell phone location records without a warrant.

"Just close your drapes."

"Just shut off your phone."
 
2013-05-17 05:01:27 PM

Magorn: White People Problems.  residents of a luxury high rise should be able to pop for some curtains or blinds


Better yet, a reflective mylar coating that obscures the view in but lets you see out.
 
2013-05-17 05:04:51 PM

ComicBookGuy: A true artist does his art for himself.


That would be a starving artist.
 
2013-05-17 05:11:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Magorn: White People Problems.  residents of a luxury high rise should be able to pop for some curtains or blinds

Better yet, a reflective mylar coating that obscures the view in but lets you see out.


Window tint is for communists.
 
2013-05-17 05:12:13 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?

What part of the three prongs are you missing?

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this question... Can you re-ask?

Her image was used for trade without a release. This is in no way comparable to TFA's subjects.

Aren't their images being used in a piece of artwork up for an expensive sale? They certainly didn't sign any releases.

It doesn't talk about an invasion of privacy, it talks about the commercial use of her face in a film without her permission.

... yes, that's one possible way to meet the limitations in the New York invasion of privacy statute. I'm not sure why you think that means it has nothing to do with invasion of privacy.

 If her face or identifiable features would have been obscured, as those in TFA's subjects, she would not have the first prong and she would have lost the case.

The first prong of the statute doesn't require her face, it merely says "picture of any living person". The pictures in the article are of living persons. It certainly meets that element.
Now, you can argue that the statute should be changed to require a recognizable portion, or a face, or anything else, but that's not in the statute.


Something tells me case law is going to interpret it as being identifiable features, like faces or anomalous body features.

The photographer in TFA didn't use anything other than a telephoto lens. If you have to keep obscuring the issue further and further into the use of telescope photography, you're no longer talking about TFA, you're getting into speculations of individual instances of reasonable measures and expectations.

The resident in TFA said she expected to be able to be seen through windows when they were unobscured. It's not speculation. She sounds perfectly reasonable.
 
2013-05-17 05:14:00 PM

Theaetetus: magicgoo: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?

Yeah. Celebrities are thought to be "newsworthy" people, and so there's more leniency for publishing their pictures.
As a result, states with a large number of celebrities like California have enacted much, much stronger invasion of privacy statutes.


Hmm, finally, one good thing California has done! That's good too know. Not that I plan on getting photographed by creeper artists any time soon.
 
2013-05-17 05:18:05 PM

magicgoo: Theaetetus: magicgoo: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?

Yeah. Celebrities are thought to be "newsworthy" people, and so there's more leniency for publishing their pictures.
As a result, states with a large number of celebrities like California have enacted much, much stronger invasion of privacy statutes.

Hmm, finally, one good thing California has done! That's good too know. Not that I plan on getting photographed by creeper artists any time soon.


I wouldn't take anything he says as truth.

He claims to be a lawyer.
 
2013-05-17 05:23:30 PM
I see Fluffy still hasn't figured out that old puzzle with the two guards. :)
 
2013-05-17 05:27:11 PM
You claim to be a patent attorney no less.

/is it any wonder you are always wrong?
 
2013-05-17 05:29:44 PM
I don't think much of this guy's photography.

But sometimes art is about the context; and in this pre-drone world it seems a timely statement about 'in plain view' privacy; and I support its success in sparking conversation about something really important.

I wonder about the background of line-of-sight privacy laws; I imagine they came from cases where allowing it was helpful to law enforcement; and perhaps the fact these same laws also allow for this behavior is more or less coincidental.

But at least that would show we live in a place where the people and the law, conceptually mostly, have the same rights.

/ which is pretty great.
 
2013-05-17 05:30:29 PM

Badgers: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 624x352]


What about 30 Rock?
 
2013-05-17 05:34:02 PM

fluffy2097: You claim to be a patent attorney no less.

/is it any wonder you are always wrong?


Let's see... You think I'm always wrong because I'm a patent attorney, but you also think I'm lying about being a patent attorney, which means you think I'm wrong because I'm not a patent attorney, but then I'd be telling the truth, so therefore I am an attorney, which is why you think I'm wrong, except for the part where I'm right about that.
So, yes, it is.

Unfortunately, that's the only question you're allowed to ask, so I think you're done in this thread.
 
2013-05-17 05:41:40 PM
What a colossal asshole. He needs a poke in the snoot. Also, he's a derivative hack. This was done much, much creepier and better by another complete dickhead: Some chick, IIRC, in the suburbs.

Also Edward Hopper. I hope Arne reads this and thinks of suicide, because he is so lame and unoriginal
 
2013-05-17 07:22:26 PM

fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.


Legal yes, morally good no.
/do unto others
 
2013-05-17 07:41:07 PM

Hiro-ACiD: fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

Legal yes, morally good no.
/do unto others


"Your Honor, I was just following the Golden Rule.  I like it when strangers tie me up and shove ice cubes up my ass."

/most flawed moral advice ever.
 
2013-05-17 07:58:47 PM

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


The only way they could sue (and expect to win) is if they were recognizable in the photos AND the photos were used for commercial purposes. Commercial purposes does not mean printing and selling them, or making a book full of them and selling that, those are editorial uses. Commercial purposes means using them to advertise an unrelated product, such as herpes medication.
 
2013-05-17 08:07:07 PM

Theaetetus: Let's see... You think I'm always wrong because I'm a patent attorney, but you also think I'm lying about being a patent attorney, which means you think I'm wrong because I'm not a patent attorney, but then I'd be telling the truth, so therefore I am an attorney, which is why you think I'm wrong, except for the part where I'm right about that.
So, yes, it is.

Unfortunately, that's the only question you're allowed to ask, so I think you're done in this thread.


awww. who's terrible at lateral thinking.  You're terrible at lateral thinking. yes you are! yes you are!!!

You're just adorable. You still haven't addressed the issue of a 7 foot tall privacy fence in your first example (which is in the wrong state! how embarrasing!)

You haven't addressed the fact your second example is actually about the movie Supersize Me, and involves an employees face and voice being video taped by a hidden camera on restaurant property, which was then used in the commercial advertisements and the actual movie.

You keep on about your TV tropes though. I'm sure that's good for... something...
 
2013-05-18 12:56:06 AM

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


see paparazzi from above posting
and then tell us why you think you have a clue?
 
2013-05-18 01:10:47 AM
meh
I walk around my house naked with the windows drawn. If anyone is dumb enough to look in, they deserve what happens to them. On the other hand, I am on the 20th floor. so there is that.

so
WHAT happens when we finally get FLYING CARS?
will people buzz highrises and take pics?

what about those awesome like RC copters you can get right now??
 
2013-05-18 01:25:46 AM

Magorn: Or so sayeth the Supreme Court. Line of sight, even when you used mechanical aids that enhance the visible light spectrum, is "in plain view" and no warrant is needed.


OK. I always thought binoculars et al were also verboten.

/bored
 
2013-05-18 02:04:10 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Magorn: Or so sayeth the Supreme Court. Line of sight, even when you used mechanical aids that enhance the visible light spectrum, is "in plain view" and no warrant is needed.

OK. I always thought binoculars et al were also verboten.

/bored


The Supremes give the green light to technology  that is available to the general public and in common use.  Telephoto lenses would meet those criteria.  Anything sold only to law enforcement would not.
 
2013-05-18 12:04:30 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Peeping Tom
Uncle Tom

Who the fark was this Tom guy, and what did he do to for his name to be used as an insult? Seriously, who was "Tom"?


Here ya go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_toms_cabin
 
2013-05-18 06:06:35 PM

ReverendJynxed: umad: mayIFark: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Just trying to mix peeing Tom with creepy uncle.

/Intentional

So you mixed them by using a term that already means something. SMRT.

umad?


You are the very first person to make that hilariously original joke, I swear. In fact, this post is so good, that it puts you in the same league as greats like spentmiles and pocket_ninja. I bow to your awesome intellect. Keep being awesome!
 
Displayed 47 of 147 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report