meredith2kp4
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 07-2004
Posts: 703
Karma: 13 (+43/-30)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Interesting legal tactic
Excellent analysis by Danglin.
|
|
6/12/2009, 3:55 pm
|
Send Email to meredith2kp4
Send PM to meredith2kp4
|
redheadelizabeth
Moderator
Global user
Registered: 08-2004
Posts: 869
Karma: 5 (+92/-87)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Interesting legal tactic
I think the complicating factor is, if I get the drift of the article, that the pair either lives in public housing or has their rent subsidized by the government. Being that it's taxpayer dollars going to, in essence, subsidize the activity, that either may create a greater ability for the government to proscribe behavior of those in the program, or a political problem that will make city councillors, etc. pass ordinances to restrict the behavior.
|
|
6/13/2009, 3:01 pm
|
Send Email to redheadelizabeth
Send PM to redheadelizabeth
|
JMRuns
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 35
Karma: 2 (+4/-2)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Interesting legal tactic
There are several red hearings here. First, the old buggabo about children may see.
The law is crafted with the idea that children might see, and that what they are wearing complies with the law then they are covered to the extent that the people who wrote the law thought they should be when viewed by others, be that adults or children. Honestly, most children could not care one hoot what some old wrinkly adults do or do not wear.
Next is the strange idea expressed above that "not illegal=no problem - is not a good standard." It seems to me that not illegal DOES mean no legal problem.
So the only thing left is what some busy bodies think. If they were worried about what the church lades thought they would not have ventured out into the yard in thongs. Therefore we can safely assume they have considered that some uptight people may disprove but have decided that doing what they want to do is more valuable for them than gaining the approval of the church women, who probably are not there friends to start with.
I agree, if some one does not keep exercising the right to wear thongs in public the general public will start to assume that wearing a thong is wrong, and then when someone does it they will cry out for a new law to prevent this newly discovered 'crime'. That's one of the reasons the most I wear on the beach is a thong. People sometimes ask why and I answer to preserve my and your right to wear a thong, and to let others know there is nothing wrong with it. When others see me they get the courage to follow suit.
|
|
6/28/2009, 10:46 am
|
Send Email to JMRuns
Send PM to JMRuns
|
ManaUser
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 07-2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 110
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Interesting legal tactic
quote:
JMRuns wrote:
Next is the strange idea expressed above that "not illegal=no problem - is not a good standard."
I was briefly temped to respond to this by calling you names, posting a gigantic rude image macro or linking you an obnoxious flash animation. Because hey, it's not illegal right? But then I realized that isn't a good standard for behavior.
|
|
6/28/2009, 12:11 pm
|
Send PM to ManaUser
|
nautical62
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 06-2006
Posts: 82
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Interesting legal tactic
I think the last sentence indicates the if pressed legally the issue would come down the the definition of "nuisance" in their area. My experience is such ordinances are often vague and open to interpretation.
I agree people often need to push the limits for change to happen, but if not done appropriately can backfire. Push an obscure law for example and not do what it takes to win when the other side does and you may create case law that works against such activities.
|
|
7/6/2009, 8:42 am
|
Send Email to nautical62
Send PM to nautical62
Yahoo
|