[Grug]

LMAO.

[Descenterace]

I agree, Nuke.

Repeat offenders shouldn't be given any quarter. They should get one strike (if that) then OUT.

[WMCoolmon]

Meh.

I'm going to throw out an idea I've had floating around in the back of my head...

What is the guy doing wrong?

There's no proof that it was his intention to harm the woman in any fashion. There's no proof that he did harm the woman in any fashion. In fact, there's no proof that he harmed anyone, anywhere.

You might bring up the slippery slope argument, except we're already there...people sueing fast food companies for making them fat.

Noone's person was violated, nor was their property, nor their privacy. In a way, this guy has done less damage to that person's rights than the Bush administration. (Whee! Let's see how quickly this turns into a flamefest now! ) I don't think anywhere in the Constitution it says that people will have the right to not see things they don't want to see.

And if you look at this another way, the woman could have ignored the guy.

[karajorma]

Playing with yourself falls in the category of "things you should do in privacy of your own home or with only other concenting adults present". If you allow this then where's the harm if he takes a crap on the floor and then cleans it up with a pooperscooper?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Meh.

I'm going to throw out an idea I've had floating around in the back of my head...

What is the guy doing wrong?

There's no proof that it was his intention to harm the woman in any fashion. There's no proof that he did harm the woman in any fashion. In fact, there's no proof that he harmed anyone, anywhere.

You might bring up the slippery slope argument, except we're already there...people sueing fast food companies for making them fat.

Noone's person was violated, nor was their property, nor their privacy. In a way, this guy has done less damage to that person's rights than the Bush administration. (Whee! Let's see how quickly this turns into a flamefest now! ) I don't think anywhere in the Constitution it says that people will have the right to not see things they don't want to see.

And if you look at this another way, the woman could have ignored the guy.

Most laws and regulations have no direct constitutional basis. The Constitution is a relatively bare-bones document, and it has generally been accepted that the only way to reconcile the document with changing circumstances is to adopt a loose-constructionist interpretation, meaning that if the Constitution doesn't forbid a certain law, then it is arguably legitimate. Laws regarding indecent exposure fall into that category.

[Stealth]

Public Indecency.

Also,  i was born and raised in South Africa  some of the things people did to cars were awesome.  one guy left his windows open all the time, and had a guillotine-like setup triggered by a motion sensor.  if you put your hand through the window, this guillotine would slice down.  he said one day he hoped he's come to the car and see a human hand sitting on the seat.

pretty crazy

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by karajorma
Playing with yourself falls in the category of "things you should do in privacy of your own home or with only other concenting adults present". If you allow this then where's the harm if he takes a crap on the floor and then cleans it up with a pooperscooper?

I think what I'm getting at here is the reason for prosecution. It doesn't come off as being for sanitary reasons or because the woman was really fearing for her life or well-being, mental or physical. In fact her action of snapping the picture and then prosecuting the guy makes it seem like she wasn't distraught enough to not be thinking clearly.

So it just gets down to one person thinking that what another person is doing is 'wrong', without providing any reasoning other than it goes against what they think is proper behavior.

Once you get into that, it becomes little better than saying that people should do this, because this religion and group that follows that religion says so, and is in the majority. The Constitution was written the way it was so that the minority could not simply be oppressed by the majority; this seems like a case where there's not much evidence that it isn't happening.

Even if you involve sanitary issues, it's not much different than going to the restroom and not washing your hands, something which far too many people do for my comfort. I'm not even sure there's a law about it, outside of food preparation jobs.

[karajorma]

So you'd be okay with travelling on a tube train full of people playing with themselves and defecating into plastic bags?

While I'm asking the constitution says nothing what frequencies I can broadcast radio signals on. If I choose to use the frequency that airplanes use isn't the majority oppressing me to say that I can't use it?

[mikhael]

Actually the Constitution specifically allows for the Federal and State governments to make laws--which includes the laws that parcel frequency to licensed users.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by karajorma
So you'd be okay with travelling on a tube train full of people playing with themselves and defecating into plastic bags?

No, I wouldn't. I actually feel slightly better about this guy getting punished. My problem is that when I look at the case, I don't see sanitation being the driving force behind the case, but rather one person thinking that what he's doing is 'wrong'. And then that moral judgement is imposed upon him.

Had the tone of the article been different, the attitude of the woman been different, I very likely wouldn't care and would be all for it. But as it is, something about the way this was presented as being done bothers me.

I don't want to see people jacking off in public; but neither do I want it to become common practice for one group of people to impose on another group of people because of a difference of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.

While I'm asking the constitution says nothing what frequencies I can broadcast radio signals on. If I choose to use the frequency that airplanes use isn't the majority oppressing me to say that I can't use it?

Well, you're endangering others by interfering with critical communications, so I would say no. In fact I would say you represent almost as much of a threat to those people as if you stood on the runway and flashed a laser pointer at the plane.

[karajorma]

But if I want to take a radio frequency and I do so at night BEFORE any planes are in the sky to be endangered by my actions why should I have to relinquish the frequency just because someone else wants it to land their plane?

[mikhael]

you shouldn't be transmitting on that frequency in the first place. You're not licensed for it.

[karajorma]

But going on WMCoolmon's comments who are the government to tell me what frequencies I am licensed to use in the first place? That's not in the constitution is it?

[mikhael]

In the United States, the Constitution gives the federal government that power. The specific clause is the one that says the Congress can make laws.

[Descenterace]

And if there weren't a certain level of control over who could use which frequencies, either the air industry would be a lot smaller or there'd be a lot more 'navigational incidents'.

Still think the government shouldn't have the right to parcel up the airwaves?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
In the United States, the Constitution gives the federal government that power. The specific clause is the one that says the Congress can make laws.

Which is exactly the reason you can't pull it out and play with yourself on a train.

Didn't you guys see where I was going with this one?

[WMCoolmon]

No, but I'm disappointed.

I expected more than "It's a valid law, so that makes it OK."

It's nice to know you care about privacy, but disappointing that you think any law is OK, even if the justification is only that 51% of the population wants it, and the current interpretation of the Constitution says it's OK.

[karajorma]

So give me a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to use any radio frequency I want to use that isn't due to you saying the same thing.

[WMCoolmon]

Well, you're endangering others by interfering with critical communications, so I would say no. In fact I would say you represent almost as much of a threat to those people as if you stood on the runway and flashed a laser pointer at the plane.

There you go. I don't see how being there at night when planes supposedly aren't around (Although it'd have to be a VERY small airport) would make any difference.

Although if you want a reason then, it'd be the radio calls that are least expected that would be the most important.

[karajorma]

You're simply answering it by saying that they've choosen to use that one and it would be dangerous to let me have it  if they are also using it and therefore they should have it.

You're still not answering the basic question I'm asking of why the airlines have any more right to the frequency than I do.

How is that any different on the basic level from people shouldn't masturbate on the train because most people don't want that?