|
al-azad posted:And it isn't moral, ethical, or good to arrest someone for something that is legal. Yep in Mass we recently had a case where a guy was taking upskirt pics on the T. He was arrested and charged, but the Supreme Judicial Court said that based off the current law it was not illegal. Due to this case the law was changed to include it, but the guy who got arrested did not get in trouble as when he did it, it was not illegal.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
We've only had 240 years. We'll get it right eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Yep in Mass we recently had a case where a guy was taking upskirt pics on the T. He was arrested and charged, but the Supreme Judicial Court said that based off the current law it was not illegal. Due to this case the law was changed to include it, but the guy who got arrested did not get in trouble as when he did it, it was not illegal. Yeah, it goes both ways. That's why any rational civilization uses prior experience to change their discourse. The absolute worst thing would be to not do anything about it. And of course the difference here is that one guy is reading gross stuff in private while the other is invading real people's privacy. al-azad fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I assume these dreaded red jackets are on ice skates? Horses. But the horses have skis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Horses. But the horses have skis. Amusingly, that description of Canada is basically how it was portrayed in the last Alpha Flight ongoing. Complete with the government brainwashing Northstar's husband to not be gay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Yep in Mass we recently had a case where a guy was taking upskirt pics on the T. He was arrested and charged, but the Supreme Judicial Court said that based off the current law it was not illegal. Due to this case the law was changed to include it, but the guy who got arrested did not get in trouble as when he did it, it was not illegal. Not really the same situation as porn comics. It really sucks that person was able to get away with taking those pictures, though. I guess in my opinion I disagree with "if it isn't illegal it must be defended till it is legal" either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:These are all awesome! I love little girl Thor! Cosplay from the 70s and 80s is fascinating. Here's a big photo gallery from a con in 1980 with lots of cosplay. **Severe 70s wallpaper warning**   Here's a bunch more
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Sheesh, compensating much, dude on the right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Nerds...Nerds never changes....
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Not really the same situation as porn comics. It really sucks that person was able to get away with taking those pictures, though. I guess in my opinion I disagree with "if it isn't illegal it must be defended till it is legal" either. I don't think people should be sent to jail when they haven't broken a law, however immoral their behavior is. I also think, as someone mentioned, there is a huge difference between looking at disgusting drawings in your own house and invading the personal privacy of someone to sexually exploit their own person. Child pronography is more complicated as an issue then it would first appear, I remember when I was a kid there were people picketing Barnes and Noble because they were selling a photo book by some photojournalist that contained a couple pictures of naked children from some tribal culture. And as someone else mentioned, they were trying to make it illegal for parents to take pictures of their own naked infants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Cosplay from the 70s and 80s is fascinating. Here's a big photo gallery from a con in 1980 with lots of cosplay. **Severe 70s wallpaper warning** What this series is telling me is that anime ruined cosplay. Or saved it, depends on your perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I don't think people should be sent to jail when they haven't broken a law, however immoral their behavior is. I also think, as someone mentioned, there is a huge difference between looking at disgusting drawings in your own house and invading the personal privacy of someone to sexually exploit their own person. Yeah that why the CBDL took that case. If you look at a bunch of ancient art it does have what would be classified as child pornography. Even Neil Gaiman said that he had a naked kid in Sandman and that could get him arrested. Its also important to note that the guy did go to jail as his lawyer told him the jury he got would not acquit him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Not really the same situation as porn comics. It really sucks that person was able to get away with taking those pictures, though. I guess in my opinion I disagree with "if it isn't illegal it must be defended till it is legal" either. Then what is the point of having laws?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I don't really believe in the first amendment anyway Dope. Snowglobe of Doom posted:Here's some photos of a cosplay competition at a Comic-Con sometime in the 70s: Also dope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:Then what is the point of having laws? To create an ordered system. Skwirl posted:I don't think people should be sent to jail when they haven't broken a law, however immoral their behavior is. I just don't think I could ever be comfortable with that. The guy that took those photos is an evil scumfucker and it doesn't sit well with me that they went free. bobkatt013 posted:Its also important to note that the guy did go to jail as his lawyer told him the jury he got would not acquit him. That sucks too.  See, someone who didn't deserve to go to prison did because they technically broke a vague, overreaching obscenity law, and someone that did deserve to go to prison didn't because what they did wasn't technically illegal. Not right.
WickedHate fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I just don't think I could ever be comfortable with that. The guy that took those photos is an evil scumfucker and it doesn't sit well with me that they went free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Also knows as "the premise of comic books".
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
redbackground posted:So you are in favor of vigilante justice, this is correct? Yes and no. I don't want lynch mobs either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
On the one hand I'm a very strong supporter of freedom of speech and expression, but on the other hand it would be cool to see WickedHate serve jail time for voicing an extremely dumb opinion. Perhaps we can find some middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Is anyone else hearing the mega record scratch everytime WickedHate posts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:To create an ordered system. If you can't define what is and is not legal, then how is that order?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:If you can't define what is and is not legal, then how is that order? What she thinks is right is the law and anything else is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Yeah that why the CBDL took that case. If you look at a bunch of ancient art it does have what would be classified as child pornography. Even Neil Gaiman said that he had a naked kid in Sandman and that could get him arrested. Its also important to note that the guy did go to jail as his lawyer told him the jury he got would not acquit him. The definition of "obscenity" in American law is literally "Will the average person find it weird?" Considering the "average" person in America is a white Christian between the age of 35 and 39 it should come as no surprise FOX news can't go a month without talking about the latest morally offensive thing they heard or read second hand on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:If you can't define what is and is not legal, then how is that order? Cases where the law should be bended or changed on the spot are relatively rare. I'm not saying "this is what the governments of the world should do right now". Humans, and large group of humans, aren't going to create a perfect legal system, at least not for a long, long time. I'm just saying, such and such would be ideal. bobkatt013 posted:What she thinks is right is the law and anything else is illegal. Right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:If you can't define what is and is not legal, then how is that order? e: dammit, bobkatt
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
No western democracy that I've heard of would condone retroactive punishment. It's kind of a key tenet of legislature and judiciary. You can't punish people for doing something that literally wasn't illegal at the time. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is only a valid premise when the accused could reasonably know the law they've broken in the first place, which would be literally impossible if it didn't exist. Say, for argument's sake, that spitting on the pavement was made a capital offence 6 months from now. Should I be executed because I did it yesterday, despite having no way to know it would be a crime, let alone of that magnitude, and thus unable to reasonably choose to act otherwise with that knowledge in mind? Yes, the upskirt dude is a perv and an rear end in a top hat and deserves any ire he gets, but you can't punish someone for something they had no way of knowing was illegal. (Whether he should've known it was 'wrong' is a different matter, but all kinds of things are morally or ethically 'wrong' but aren't legislated against, like infidelity or lots of instances of lying.) bobkatt013 posted:What she thinks is right is the law and anything else is illegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmWQd8zhEg4
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Yes, the upskirt dude is a perv and an rear end in a top hat and deserves any ire he gets, but you can't punish someone for something they had no way of knowing was illegal. (Whether he should've known it was 'wrong' is a different matter, but all kinds of things are morally or ethically 'wrong' but aren't legislated against, like infidelity or lots of instances of lying.) I can't believe he didn't think it was illegal, unless he actually looked for the technicality before going through with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
You seem to think that if what you are saying was possible, it would only be used for good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:Then what is the point of having laws? Law is the means by which we settle disagreements about rights. </dworkin> I have many other half-baked ideas about jurisprudence which probably aren't relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:Law is the means by which we settle disagreements about rights. </dworkin> Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean by that. Could you explain?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:Law is the means by which we settle disagreements about rights. </dworkin> Man, you really don't expect such heavy sentiments coming from the guy who wrote Milk & Cheese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
There are already laws about taking photos of people without permission, but I guess they don't apply when it's not their face you're photographing? Hell there are numerous cases of people getting in trouble for releasing photos the subject consented to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean by that. Could you explain? To some extent it's a matter of interpretation. It seems to me that if you look at any legal dispute, you can readily interpret it as being fundamentally concerned with rights. I think I could say a lot about this subject, but in the interest of brevity I'll submit that, when individuals retain and exercise human rights (let us make the assumption that rights are intrinsic to one's discrete humanity and not mere products of positive law, although this is certainly a controversial idea) in a civil society, then conflicts between rights-holders are inevitable. The purpose of law is to regulate "exchanges" of rights, to determine when one claim prevails over another or when a person's rights have been violated. I hope that makes what I'm saying at least a little clearer. Admittedly, I'm not very good at explaining things in 50 words when 5000 will do. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:There are already laws about taking photos of people without permission, but I guess they don't apply when it's not their face you're photographing? redbackground fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
And here I was all worried that I might get yelled at for my joke about Frank Quitely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:There are already laws about taking photos of people without permission, but I guess they don't apply when it's not their face you're photographing? Actually, there are no laws about taking photos of people without permission in public view with the exception of certain very specific examples (like the upskirt law in question). How you use those photographs is where the law become considerably more complicated but those are issues of publication, not action. I could go to my supermarket parking lot and take pictures of everyone who goes in and out for my
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I don't really believe in the first amendment anyway Jesus, you really are aiming for 'worse than Rhyno' aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
prefect posted:And here I was all worried that I might get yelled at for my joke about Frank Quitely. He's the fastest man who can't sit down for more than 20 minutes at a time alive!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Jesus, you really are aiming for 'worse than Rhyno' aren't you? A noble goal
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Gaz-L posted:So the law should change to suit the individual, not the other way around? I like where your head's at, but no goon's actually that buff. Actually, WickedHate, show me a vid of you beating up a ninja and I'll follow you to hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 23:29
|
|
