I saw this and I wondered how to make sense of this bit:
, any public nudity will bring a charge of misdemeanor child endangerment, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
I think that there is an argument of some sort against pornography being available where children might see it: but I cannot honestly see that streaking is pornographic. It does not seem to me to be designed to make people horny, more to make them laugh. Maybe it is just me, but child endangerment?
"We just think it's time to take control of the event again and say this really is intended to be a family event," he said.
Apparently nudity isn't a "family value."
Bah... I've already stated my thoughts on this kind of stuff. My view on those who make statements like the above, "Get over it already people, it's the human body, no big deal."
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
Opposition to the streaking has grown since last year's derby, he said, when a deputy used a Taser to apprehend a 21-year-old, dropping him to the dirt as he streaked with a fire extinguisher before a crowd of 3,500.
Damn Janet Jackson's nipple, this is all her fault.
"Be thankful you're healthy." "Be bitter you're not going to stay that way."
"Be glad you're even alive." "Be furious you're going to die."
"Things could be much worse." "They could be one hell of a lot better."
I may be wrong, but most places that link nudity with child endangerment are doing so based, not on streakers but on flashers which is usually deemed a sexual assault on someone (someone walking up to a woman/child and flashing them because they get off on it). In those cases the laws are usually vague enough that streaking can be considered the same offense. I doubt that they are making up a new law, they are just using an existing law to respond to complaints that have been made.
[QUOTE=Darzog]I may be wrong, but most places that link nudity with child endangerment are doing so based, not on streakers but on flashers which is usually deemed a sexual assault on someone (someone walking up to a woman/child and flashing them because they get off on it). In those cases the laws are usually vague enough that streaking can be considered the same offense. I doubt that they are making up a new law, they are just using an existing law to respond to complaints that have been made.[/QUOTE]
I am sure you are right but that is what I mean by "doing it by numbers". Flashing is very scary indeed, and steeaking is funny. There is some overlap ( I saw a very funny flasher in Amsterdam, though he was on a bike so he might qualify as a streaker) But I cannot see any reason for widening the application of the law in this way. It brings it into disrepute really, I think
With all the American "sex and violence" they have on tv you would think they would be ok with streakers. I swear those conservatives need to lighten up and get their head out of their... money.
Fiona why must you post things that make me so angry
does this mean I cant streak with you anymore Fiona??
Wondering how vampires live the life they live.....
seriously I dont know how they sleep during the day, I have a twitch everytime I hear a loud sound as I slumber, everytime ....Im just waiting to pounce on the poor mortal who creates a sound while I sleep in during the day. /rant
Such silly nonsense. Just political nonsense so that they can get away with doing other things. They just don't want to be caught with their pants down. And don't want anyone else to, either.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
[QUOTE=Damuna_Nova]...And why isn't nudity okay, pray tell?[/QUOTE]
Haven't you seen some of the people out there!?
And has anyone noticed the upward trend in nudity-fear in the US matching the rate of obesity in the US? Maybe these people aren't actually against nudity, just fat nudity!:speech:
