Rubbing Diogenes' Nose in Reality

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Aji de Gallina]
So both the GA and the UCMJ rules apply both the hetero and homosexual activities.
[/QUOTE]

Part of the fact pattern that went into the Lawrence ruling was that nobody was ever charged under the statute for heterosexual oral or anal sex.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, just out of curiosity, what is the worst that could happen?

Stalin deliberately let millions of Ukrainians starve.“You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs,” famously said Walter Duranty about the planned famine intended to destroy Ukraine’s opposition.

So that’s the worst that could happen.

[Shodan]

@Bricker

Here I will disagree. If the law exists, then to challenge it, you need someone with standing. That particular instance may have been volunteers, but as long as the law existed, it gave police the power to arrest (or investigate) acts that shouldn’t be crimes.

If you wish to engage in some act that is on the books as a crime, but shouldn’t be a crime because it’s conduct protected by the Constitution, then your rights ARE being violated.

If I understand the case correctly, the argument was based on a right to privacy. If you set yourselves up to get arrested, it could be argued that you are forgoing a right to privacy. This is especially so if the police aren’t enforcing the law generally. It is harder to argue that the law is being used to violate rights if you can’t find anyone whose rights have been violated.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Stalin deliberately let millions of Ukrainians starve.“You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs,” famously said Walter Duranty about the planned famine intended to destroy Ukraine’s opposition.

So that’s the worst that could happen.

If we’re playing that game, SFG’s hypothetical is actually an understatement of what would happen if the rightest of the right took power. You know, Hitler, Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.

[Squink]

@Bricker

Here I will disagree. If the law exists, then to challenge it, you need someone with standing. That particular instance may have been volunteers, but as long as the law existed, it gave police the power to arrest (or investigate) acts that shouldn’t be crimes.

Shodan also sets the standard for whether anyone is harmed by an unjust law way too law. Just because no one is arrested doesn’t mean that no one is living in fear of their asshole neighbor turning them in to the cops over something that shouldn’t be a crime; to say nothing of the opportunities for extortion the law provides.

[Bricker]

@Shodan

If I understand the case correctly, the argument was based on a right to privacy. If you set yourselves up to get arrested, it could be argued that you are forgoing a right to privacy. This is especially so if the police aren’t enforcing the law generally. It is harder to argue that the law is being used to violate rights if you can’t find anyone whose rights have been violated.

Even if police never enforce the law, its mere existence on the books can be an entreé for the police to detain and investigate other crimes. Once the police have probable cause to believe the faux-crime has been committed, they can detain you, search you incident to arrest, all the while covered by the shield of probable cause, Whatever contraband they find can then be used to REALLY charge you. And if they find none, the simply let you go, an exercise of their discretion they’re entitled to make.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If we’re playing that game, SFG’s hypothetical is actually an understatement of what would happen if the rightest of the right took power. You know, Hitler, Jews, gypsies, gays, etc.

My point remains: SFG did not apply the same yardstick when crafting the two “worst-case” scenarios.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

Perhaps not even those two - a journalist/judge who investigated the case concluded that they set themselves up deliberately to get arrested as a test case.

Hard to argue that your rights are being violated if you volunteer.

They weren’t really arrested and jailed?

This is victim blaming bullshit.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Okay, so assuming you borrowed her yardstick and measured the same distance to the left, what calamities would you foresee?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

And you believe that if the wingiest of the wingy on the Left had their way, the worst thing that would happen is that a significant part of your income would be involuntarily diverted to social programs, some of which may benefit you?

Yes.

I don’t actually understand what you think was bad about the story you linked to. The state did the right thing in that case. What’s the problem?

[Shodan]

@Bricker

Even if police never enforce the law, its mere existence on the books can be an entreé for the police to detain and investigate other crimes. Once the police have probable cause to believe the faux-crime has been committed, they can detain you, search you incident to arrest, all the while covered by the shield of probable cause, Whatever contraband they find can then be used to REALLY charge you. And if they find none, the simply let you go, an exercise of their discretion they’re entitled to make.

Then I reiterate - why would it be the case that no one with standing could be located?

And it would seem to me that if you volunteer to be arrested, you are giving up your right to object to being searched pursuant to that arrest.

“Yoo hoo, I’m boffing my boyfriend, come and arrest me!” followed by “My right to privacy has been horribly violated” does not compute.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Squink

… to say nothing of the opportunities for extortion the law provides.

I am afraid this doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Someone who volunteers to be sodomized in such a way as to get arrested and then plead his case all the way to the Supreme farging Court is not someone I expect to be intimidated by being outed by the neighbors.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The house in Lawrence was searched due to a complaint from a third party - the boyfriend of one of the participants - and the complaint had nothing to do with sexual conduct in any case. The participants could hardly be accused of volunteering to be arrested even if they had set up the whole thing.

Then I reiterate - why would it be the case that no one with standing could be located?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe because most gay couples (just like normal folks!) don’t want to be on national television and/or charged with committing acts that could get you murdered in Texas?

I am afraid this doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Someone who volunteers to be sodomized in such a way as to get arrested and then plead his case all the way to the Supreme farging Court is not someone I expect to be intimidated by being outed by the neighbors.

Oh, you answered your own question already.

[Squink]

@Shodan

I am afraid this doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Someone who volunteers to be sodomized in such a way as to get arrested and then plead his case all the way to the Supreme farging Court is not someone I expect to be intimidated by being outed by the neighbors.

Your fail to consider the possibility that there are people being sodomized in such a way as to be in legal jeopardy, but who do not want to give their lives over to fighting an injust law.
It is these people that the law puts at risk of extortion by neighbors, bosses, or anyone else who happens to discover their secret.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Shodan

Hard to argue that your rights are being violated if you volunteer.

Uh, no it’s not. An unconstitutional law remains unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not it’s actively enforced. (Side note for Bricker: That means a law that I personally consider to be constitutional, and that the courts may deign to discuss the constitutionality of. Obviously.)

@Bricker

My intent was to point out Shot From Guns’s disparate “worst case scenarios” when applied to Democrats and Republicans.

Evil One, to whom I was replying, said that they picked Republicans over Democrats, because while they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they believe that in choosing between those two agendas, the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. I.e., they are more bothered by the Democrats’ economic policies than by the Republicans social ones. So, that’s what I compared. The worst-case ooga-booga monster that fiscal conservatives seem to be frightened of is that the government is going to have very strong involvement in what they can do with their money: their taxes will be high to support government-run health care, housing, education, etc. Some of those will, indubitably, benefit them, though potentially not as much as keeping that portion of their income would have.

I’m obviously biased here. But you cannot deny that the actual espoused positions of Republicans on social issues vs. Democrats on economic issues are pretty much as I’ve couched them, at their most hyperbolic.

Looking at what actual Democratic politicians, or prominent left-wing figures, have said about what they’d like to do economically, I’d like you to please construct your worst-case scenario for what would happen if they had actual free reign with the laws of the United States. I can’t see how you could honestly construct anything dissimilar to my projection without reaching into scenarios outside of the U.S.

P.S. “Her,” not “his.” Unless I’ve undergone some significant changes to my gender since the last time I checked.

@Bricker

Stalin deliberately let millions of Ukrainians starve.“You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs,” famously said Walter Duranty about the planned famine intended to destroy Ukraine’s opposition.

So, where are the Democrats who are suggesting that we should let people stave to death to pay for social programs? Oh, wait, there are none. All those crazy liberals want to tax rich people to *feed *the starving poor people. And give them health care and stuff. (How dare they! I need that new Jaguar!)

[Bricker]

@Shot_From_Guns

I’m obviously biased here. But you cannot deny that the actual espoused positions of Republicans on social issues vs. Democrats on economic issues are pretty much as I’ve couched them, at their most hyperbolic.

Looking at what actual Democratic politicians, or prominent left-wing figures, have said about what they’d like to do economically, I’d like you to please construct your worst-case scenario for what would happen if they had actual free reign with the laws of the United States. I can’t see how you could honestly construct anything dissimilar to my projection without reaching into scenarios outside of the U.S.

OK, I agree with that assessment.

But what actual Republican politicians or prominent right-wing figures have proposed imprisoning LGBT people and removing all access for women to birth control of any kind?

I grant you the Ten Commandments thing is a bit iffier, but even then, “firmly ensconced in our Constitution” is an exaggeration. I agree you can point to Republicans who want to roll back the last fifty years of court decisions regarding separation of church and state, but that’s a far cry from the claim that they want the Ten Commandments in the Constitution.

So it seems to me that you’re placing strictures on my construction of worst-case scenarios that you didn’t follow in yours.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

But what actual Republican politicians or prominent right-wing figures have proposed imprisoning LGBT people

Rick Santorum did essentially that when he defended sodomy laws.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
The participants could hardly be accused of volunteering to be arrested even if they had set up the whole thing.
[/quote]
Again, this makes no sense. If they set up the whole thing, then they were volunteering to be arrested.

The fact that the boyfriend of one of the participants made the report is some of what indicates that this was a set-up. IIRC, they didn’t believe that the police would answer a call of consensual sodomy, so they had to make a different (false) report to get the police to show up. If so, they were trying waaaay too hard to get arrested to believe that privacy was their chief concern.

If this law was such a big problem, why couldn’t they find anybody with standing? And why was it so difficult to get the police to arrest them for breaking it?

These notions are a bit exaggerated.

“Bruce dear, I notice that the household accounts a little low again this month. Where did the extra $200 for the gas bill go?”

“Steve - darling - I can’t keep the secret any longer. I’m being blackmailed!”

:sobs:

“What is the secret, my darling? You know, I am always here for you. Whatever your sins, whatever your crimes - we can get thru it - together.”

:tearfully: “It’s Brian, the neighbor across the street. He is extorting money from me! If I don’t pay up - he will reveal my guilty secret to the world - and to the police!”

"What is it, my dearest darling? Say the words! Purge this demon from between us!’

"He will turn me in for - for -

Theft of cable services."

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Rick Santorum did essentially that when he defended sodomy laws.

Your inability to concede even the slightest point during a discussion makes discussing things with you very unpleasant.

I’d be happy to hear a specific quote by Santorum that may shed more light on this subject, but to the extent that the discussion arose during the lead-up to Lawrence v. Texas, the issue was not the wisdom of sodomy laws but their constitutionality. A law can be unwise but perfectly constitutional.

[Squink]

@Shodan

"What is it, my dearest darling? Say the words! Purge this demon from between us!’

"He will turn me in for - for -

Theft of cable services."

Regards,
Shodan

Mock as you will:

The reduction of Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s filesharing fine from $1.92 million to $54,000 may have been a stunning result, but the case might not be over. It appears neither side is happy with the result and either or both might appeal yet again.

As we reported at the weekend, an appeal judge rejected Thomas-Rasset’s request to reduce the fine to the legal minimum of $18,000, but did cut the award by 97 percent. What’s significant is that the decision did not make any ruling on points of law, but rather adjusted the amount to what the judge considered an appropriate penalty.

Judge Michael Davis said the original fine was “monstrous and shocking” and that the new amount was more appropriate, being “significant and harsh” but at an appropriate level to act as both punishment and deterrent. The verdict used a legal measure titled remittur, in which a judge declared that a jury acted irrationally in deciding upon the size of an award; it’s thought this is the first time this has happened in a copyright case.

Of course, Music theft is a far more serious business than cable theft. :dubious: