If this law passes, I guess you’re gonna need a permit to wipe yourself.
Check out this trip down the cashew path. :rolleyes:
Is Ohio in the throes of being overrun by a wave of rampant smut? Or is it rampant overreaction and stupidity?
Well kids, cue up “Smut” by Tom Lehrer. It’s off to filthy preverted war we go.
I think that person who wrote that bill is obviously a pervert. Linking to the bill is an act of perversion. This forum is under arrest.
Sigh, and people wonder why I keep hoping aliens will show up and wipe us out.
The more of this I see the more I long for the Stark Fist of Removal.
Citzens for Community Values (Officially Associated with Focus on the Family as a Family Policy Council in Ohio · Phil Burress, President) on HB23 “Protecting Communities from the Harms of Sexually Oriented Businesses”
I think he’s some kind of deviated prevert, organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.
(One day, my title here is going to be Deviated Prevert. Just you watch.)
On the face of it, that would “protect a community” from any physician who diagnoses or treats STDs, urogenital disorders, or other sexual dysfunctions.
My god, they’re bringing Jesus to the zombies! :eek:
(“You will now recieve the blood and the body of Christ, not the bloody vicar you vicious animal! I kick ass for the Lord!”)
I saw this on Fark.com My work computer wont let me access it though. I can’t wait to get home and read it.
I slogged through the text of that mind-rotting monstrosity and now I
Um, ah, I was gonna say somethin
we gotta yeh make stinkin prevrt demcrats an femnazzzzis an islaminals hahahaha yeh stinkin tryn takeover good christen nashun
asdljfoewbv’pihaevp’oizdfbposfdj
Did anyone read the article?
Huh. I was the only one, apparently.
The proposed law (as quoted) would not apply to Ohio women who use tampons, because it would criminalize only the insertion of objects without privilege to do so.
If an office worker is bumping into his co-worker’s thighs, genitals, buttocks or pubic regions at the water cooler for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, then I believe that is fairly characterized as sexual contact.
But I guess I’m alone in that analysis, because no one else objected…
I have to wonder if the idiots behind this law realize that by it’s very nature it will let them attack such venues of smut as Wal-Mart, Barnes&Noble, any place that sells comic books, Blockbuster, any place of business selling video or computer games…
I suspect they do know. But I hope I’m wrong.
sigh
Thank you, Big Brother.
I was going to come in (heh, heh) and say the same thing, Bricker. Moreover, inserting a tampon is only “sexual” if you insert it in someone else…
(bolding mine)
There’s enough to object to in this bill without the need to exaggerate its meaning. E.g., I hope that Barnes & Noble doesn’t make too much money selling copies of “Lady Chatterly’s Lover”.
It’s not just a stupid law, it’s a BAD law. If it allows every town to set their own definitions of obscenity (as I read it, it does) and then seize the property, assets etc. It allows them to arbitrarily change their definition at will and any time it suits them. So, they are legally allowed to rob and pillage. Then there is the whole “how do you define obscene” fiasco.
Welcome to the Dark Ages.
I noticed the same things, Bricker. Though, to be fair, the tampon part was followed by the rather vague phrase sentence
The language is vague enough that I’m not sure if it requires ‘privilege’ or not.
In general, though, I think this bill is just another attempt by the radical Christian right to impose their moral values on everyone. Adult businesses should not be required to follow bullshit rules just to please people who are trying to put them out of business.
Actually, I wasn’t thinking so much about Lady Chatterly’s Lover, or Lolita, but rather sales of comic books. Which figure characters in states of dress that are obviously intended to arouse base instincts in the reader/viewer.
Back in 1928, my grandparents had to elope to Ohio in order to get married - apparently they were too young, according to West Virginia law but not in Ohio.
Interesting how things change…
The issue this raises is how do you tell the purpose of the contact. It’s going to be fairly easy if the person in question is a slavering pervert with a circus tent being raised in his pants as soon as he makes contact. Unfortunately they aren’t all like that.
This could also raise loads of cases of perceived sexual harassment because somebody in an elevator brushed up against something or two people bump each other going around a corner and one person feels violated. I work in a deli and I bump into coworkers all the time behind the counter.
This law is stupid pointless feel good legislation made to protect those of “high moral character” and “strong religious and family values.”
Then there is this little nugget.
And this
This part’s a gem.
Guess you aren’t the only one that read the article. You may be the only one that just skimmed to the easy to defend points though.
And while I’m at it, here is a link to a non-foaming at the mouth cite for the bill. Hope ya’ll like pure and unfiltered governmentalese.
Unexpected consequences cropped up in Ohio’s “defense of marriage” amendment, also championed by Phil Burress. It seems it now may be legal to beat up on your boyfriend/girlfriend/SO, as long as you’re not married to them.
Judge cites Ohio anti-marriage amendment in throwing out domestic violence charge
It is still illegal, just a different crime.