| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
22 Jan 2006 07:53:45 PM |
| Object: |
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's
anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's laws
prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol violate the
First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal protection.
Daytona Beach also failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs create
secondary negative impacts on levels of crime, prostitution and illegal drug
activity in neighborhoods, Antoon wrote.
"We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort Lauderdale
attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club in its federal lawsuit.
City officials said they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask the City
Commission about a possible appeal.
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large gatherings, such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:32:04 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why are you whining about it, unless you're being forced to patronize said
places? (If the judge had ruled as you demanded, within a week no strip bar
in Daytona Beach would willingly sell anything alcoholic, and given your sorry
record, you'd be one of their most faithful customers.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 0 (January 22)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, January 24 at Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 10:20:41 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkirsbmxfv.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why are you whining about it, unless you're being forced to patronize said
places?
Do you mean like in "My Country 'tis of Thee" where it mentions 'sweet land
of liberty' when a person wants to take a vacation?
(If the judge had ruled as you demanded, within a week no strip bar
in Daytona Beach would willingly sell anything alcoholic, and given your
sorry
record, you'd be one of their most faithful customers.)
Yet, you are against him having the liberty to do such and for this judge's
diatribe?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 0 (January 22)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, January 24 at Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 11:31:41 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkirsbmxfv.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why are you whining about it, unless you're being forced to patronize said
places?
Do you mean like in "My Country 'tis of Thee" where it mentions 'sweet land
of liberty' when a person wants to take a vacation?
So? Is he being forced to go to a strip bar? No. Why is he whining about
others going, then?
(If the judge had ruled as you demanded, within a week no strip bar in
Daytona Beach would willingly sell anything alcoholic, and given your sorry
record, you'd be one of their most faithful customers.)
Yet, you are against him having the liberty to do such and for this judge's
diatribe?
I'm pointing out what a flagrant hypocrite he is...and what a certifiable loon
you are. Got a problem with that? Maybe one day you'll actually figure out
how to ignore me without crying like the 44-year-old baby you are.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 0 (January 22)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, January 24 at Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
24 Jan 2006 02:50:45 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2006 21:32:04 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why are you whining about it, unless you're being forced to patronize said
places? (If the judge had ruled as you demanded, within a week no strip bar
in Daytona Beach would willingly sell anything alcoholic, and given your sorry
record, you'd be one of their most faithful customers.)
when he's not at church molesting the altar boys.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
24 Jan 2006 06:28:09 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 22 Jan 2006 21:32:04 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why are you whining about it, unless you're being forced to patronize said
places? (If the judge had ruled as you demanded, within a week no strip bar
in Daytona Beach would willingly sell anything alcoholic, and given your
sorry record, you'd be one of their most faithful customers.)
when he's not at church molesting the altar boys.
He's got something for every day of the week, indeed.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 0 (January 22)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, January 24 at Peoria, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 08:40:05 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
Because the whole reason that the US exists is due to a desire to be free
from opression and to be free from religious opression. Now that things
don't work exactly the way the fundies want it to, they cry 'foul'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:56:32 PM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9753D24F0E772mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
Because the whole reason that the US exists is due to a desire to be free
from opression and to be free from religious opression.
You got a reference to cite that people were against religion or is the
reference more akin to people fled from overlording, militaristic,
unrepresentative, insufficient governments which has been referred to as
religious persecution before?
Now that things don't work exactly the way the fundies want it to, they
cry 'foul'.
Your problem is that you lost on the basics so you cry foul about them.
LOL!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 06:19:19 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in news:krYAf.2248$vp6.2008
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9753D24F0E772mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
Because the whole reason that the US exists is due to a desire to be free
from opression and to be free from religious opression.
You got a reference to cite that people were against religion or is the
reference more akin to people fled from overlording, militaristic,
unrepresentative, insufficient governments which has been referred to as
religious persecution before?
Now that things don't work exactly the way the fundies want it to, they
cry 'foul'.
Your problem is that you lost on the basics so you cry foul about them.
LOL!!!!!!!!
I think you missed my point. For freedom to be realized one must have the
ability to make choices. "Exotic Dancing" is not harmful and that is a fact.
There is no reason why one cannot enjoy watching attractive people either
nude or semi nude. Given that the religous have a problem with this form of
entertainment, they want everyone to confrm to their version of "morality"
which is exactly the very thing they were coming to America for. Americans
in general have a problem with nudity. Many Europeans do not expecially the
French (see Cap d'Agde). The attitude regarding nudity was slowly changing
in America until the Janet Jackson bit. One small group of people in
California produced over 98% (99%?) of the complaints and the FCC in it's
willful incompetency acted on those complaints. Clearly this is the tail
wagging the dog.
As far as the basics are concerned, I believe I have them correct.
It is a well known fact that the Pilgrms and Puritans were persecuted and as
such they left to find a place where they could do their own thing.
I agree that folklore and confusion between the terms Pilgrim and Puritan
sects abound but the fact remains that the early settlers came to America to
either escape discrmination or to be free to do what they considered best
which is to be more strict than the Church of England.
As far as cites are concerned here are a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims
The Pilgrims were a group of English religious separatists who sailed from
Europe to North America in the early 17th century, in search of a home where
they could freely practice their style of religion.
" ...the group [Pilgrims] left their homes in and around Scrooby, England and
sailed to Amsterdam in Holland to escape what they saw as religious
persecution at the hands of the religious and civil authorities of their
countrymen. Although not actively persecuted, the group was subjected to
ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of
their neighbors (Columbia Encyclopaedia). They left, not for religious
freedom, but because there was too much freedom of religion in England and
they wanted it to be more strict. Concerned with the morals of the time in
the Netherlands, and with their children being brought up in a Dutch
environment, they decided to move to a place better-suited to them; and in
1620, they set sail on the ship Mayflower from Plymouth Harbour, bound for
the Americas. These people became known as the Pilgrim Fathers."
While it could be argued that they were not persecuted in the true sense, but
certainly they experienced discrimination. We now have added various types
of persecution to the language to better define that form of discrimination"
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/book/chap5_2.html
It was [Archbishop] Laud above all men who visited bitter persecutions upon
the Puritans in the reign of Charles, and it was Laud who, all unconsciously,
did a great service for humanity--he caused the building of a powerful
Puritan commonwealth in the New World [America]."
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United
States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women,
who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately
held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as
plantations of religion."
WHat is interesting is that discrimination and oppression in the most extreme
were to follow the Colonists but with the tables turned. They were to be the
ones dishing out the discrimination which led to many tortures and deaths.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:02:28 PM |
|
|
In News Xns9753D24F0E772mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1,, R. Pierce Butler at
spamsucks@google.com, typed this:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals
and sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
Because the whole reason that the US exists is due to a desire to be
free from opression and to be free from religious opression. Now
that things don't work exactly the way the fundies want it to, they
cry 'foul'.
You have to remember what the U.S.'s early colonial history was like.
Sure, people came here for "religious" freedom, but only for their own
religious freedom. You were free to be white, you were free to be
christian, you were free to be the type of christian they wanted in any give
geographic area, and the rest convert or die.
That was religious freedom to the colonists.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:57:52 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL11@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in message
news:8HXAf.4931$vU2.1670@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
In News Xns9753D24F0E772mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1,, R. Pierce Butler
at spamsucks@google.com, typed this:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals
and sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
Because the whole reason that the US exists is due to a desire to be
free from opression and to be free from religious opression. Now
that things don't work exactly the way the fundies want it to, they
cry 'foul'.
You have to remember what the U.S.'s early colonial history was like.
Sure, people came here for "religious" freedom, but only for their own
religious freedom. You were free to be white, you were free to be
christian, you were free to be the type of christian they wanted in any
give geographic area, and the rest convert or die.
That was religious freedom to the colonists.
Where is your proof of that?
Are you going to cite Salem, Massachussetts, when everyone knows that is
only one city in the 13 colonies?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
24 Jan 2006 02:41:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:40:05 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<spamsucks@google.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
Because the whole reason that the US exists is due to a desire to be free
from opression and to be free from religious opression. Now that things
don't work exactly the way the fundies want it to, they cry 'foul'.
Yes, fundies are certainly foul.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 08:08:13 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why is it that you christofascists keep trying to pass laws violating other
people's individual freedoms?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:53:34 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9753D74251627wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why is it that you christofascists keep trying to pass laws violating
other
people's individual freedoms?
Why is it that people like you call people who made no reference to religion
christofactists?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
I can see your prejudice, but it is illegal in the USA to rule against
something that infringes the right to free exercise of religion, even in law
making. And, since no one has sought to respect an establishment of religion
there is no defense via the prohibition on making a law that respects an
establishment of religion.
Your asinine claim that religion has anything to do with this case is hereby
dismissed due to your lack of evidence.
What this case has to do with is the right to representation of the people
by their local municipality.
The federal government is not supposed to usurp the power of local
governments in cases where no law is being violated. Where is the Code
enacted by the legislature of the US government to allow the lower court
judge to make such a determination?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ۥR.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 05:25:10 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9753D74251627wodencharternet@69.28.186.121>, Woden
<woden@charter.net> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Why is it that you christofascists keep trying to pass laws violating other
people's individual freedoms?
** They imagine that God is rewarding them with a brownie point way up
yonder for every act of sticking their schnozz into other people's
business.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:47:24 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's
anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's laws
prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol violate
the
First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal
protection.
Daytona Beach also failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs create
secondary negative impacts on levels of crime, prostitution and illegal
drug
activity in neighborhoods, Antoon wrote.
"We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort Lauderdale
attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club in its federal lawsuit.
City officials said they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask the City
Commission about a possible appeal.
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large gatherings,
such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
What city is the federal judge presiding in?
I assume this is a lower court decision issued by a federal district court
judge.
Without the USSC determining the constitutionality of these laws the judge
is out of order.
Does this mean that a previous case was tried at the Supreme Court level to
establish a national standard of free speech in these matters?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nuki Mouse" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 03:37:00 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:MiYAf.2191$vp6.498@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
[snip]
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large gatherings,
such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
What city is the federal judge presiding in?
I assume this is a lower court decision issued by a federal district court
judge.
Without the USSC determining the constitutionality of these laws the judge
is out of order.
Does this mean that a previous case was tried at the Supreme Court level
to establish a national standard of free speech in these matters?
Johnny, quit talking out of your derriere. Any 2nd grader can tell you that
you're full of it. I realize that you are either too lazy or too stupid
check just what the US constitution says so I will make it easy for you.
Article III of the US Constitution.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish.
Those "inferior courts" ARE the Federal District Courts, also note that they
have THE SAME JUDICIAL POWERS as the Supreme Court. That includes the power
to rule a law unconstitutional, but that they are inferior to the Supreme
Court, so their rulings can be overturned by the USSC.
Ever hear of cases were the USSC "refused" to hear a case, or upheld a lower
court ruling without review? It happens many more times then they actually
decide they need to rule on a case. It means that the USSC has looked at
what the Federal District Judge has already ruled and found nothing wrong or
improper about the ruling, and it sees no need to change it.
Nuki Mouse
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with
my Life" Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:59:09 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's
anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's laws
prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol violate
the
First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal
protection.
Daytona Beach also failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs create
secondary negative impacts on levels of crime, prostitution and illegal
drug
activity in neighborhoods, Antoon wrote.
"We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort Lauderdale
attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club in its federal lawsuit.
City officials said they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask the City
Commission about a possible appeal.
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large gatherings,
such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
What city is the federal judge presiding in?
I assume this is a lower court decision issued by a federal district court
judge.
Without the USSC determining the constitutionality of these laws the judge
is out of order.
Does this mean that a previous case was tried at the Supreme Court level to
establish a national standard of free speech in these matters?
As far as I know, any judge can rule on the constitutionality of a law.
He just has to follow any precedents of higher courts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 10:22:50 PM |
|
|
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137988749.533934.112520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's
anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's
laws
prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol
violate
the
First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal
protection.
Daytona Beach also failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs
create
secondary negative impacts on levels of crime, prostitution and illegal
drug
activity in neighborhoods, Antoon wrote.
"We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort Lauderdale
attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club in its federal
lawsuit.
City officials said they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask the
City
Commission about a possible appeal.
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large gatherings,
such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
What city is the federal judge presiding in?
I assume this is a lower court decision issued by a federal district
court
judge.
Without the USSC determining the constitutionality of these laws the
judge
is out of order.
Does this mean that a previous case was tried at the Supreme Court level
to
establish a national standard of free speech in these matters?
As far as I know, any judge can rule on the constitutionality of a law.
He just has to follow any precedents of higher courts.
Seems to me that would be an oridinary judicial procedure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 10:58:20 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137988749.533934.112520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's
anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's
laws
prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell alcohol
violate
the
First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal
protection.
Daytona Beach also failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs
create
secondary negative impacts on levels of crime, prostitution and illegal
drug
activity in neighborhoods, Antoon wrote.
"We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort Lauderdale
attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club in its federal
lawsuit.
City officials said they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask the
City
Commission about a possible appeal.
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large gatherings,
such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
What city is the federal judge presiding in?
I assume this is a lower court decision issued by a federal district
court
judge.
Without the USSC determining the constitutionality of these laws the
judge
is out of order.
Does this mean that a previous case was tried at the Supreme Court level
to
establish a national standard of free speech in these matters?
As far as I know, any judge can rule on the constitutionality of a law.
He just has to follow any precedents of higher courts.
Seems to me that would be an oridinary judicial procedure.
Yes. Which is why the judge wouldn't be out of order if there were no
precedents. He'd only be out of order if going against precedent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 10:03:36 PM |
|
|
In News 1137988749.533934.112520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,, Chris
Johnson at effigies@gmail.com, typed this:
Johnny wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals
and sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_BRF_Nudity_Crackdown.html
Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A federal judge struck down Daytona Beach's
anti-nudity laws, saying they are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge John Antoon decided Friday that Daytona Beach's
laws prohibiting public nudity and nudity in places that sell
alcohol violate the
First and 14th amendments' protections of free speech and equal
protection.
Daytona Beach also failed to prove its claim that adult nightclubs
create secondary negative impacts on levels of crime, prostitution
and illegal drug
activity in neighborhoods, Antoon wrote.
"We won on every single issue," said Daniel Aaronson, a Fort
Lauderdale attorney representing Lollipops Gentleman's Club in its
federal lawsuit.
City officials said they plan to study the judge's ruling and ask
the City Commission about a possible appeal.
Public nudity has been an issue at some of the city's large
gatherings, such
as Biketoberfest and Spring Break.
What city is the federal judge presiding in?
I assume this is a lower court decision issued by a federal district
court judge.
Without the USSC determining the constitutionality of these laws the
judge is out of order.
Does this mean that a previous case was tried at the Supreme Court
level to establish a national standard of free speech in these
matters?
As far as I know, any judge can rule on the constitutionality of a
law. He just has to follow any precedents of higher courts.
This is true.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nuki Mouse" |
|
| Title: No legislated from the bench was done. |
23 Jan 2006 10:17:59 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
HEY DIPSHIT J Young, absolutely NOTHING was legislated from the bench in
this case, the judge just decided the law as written was unconstitutional.
That removes this law from the books period, and NOT any other existing laws
regarding public nudity or indecency in bars/clubs, they would still be in
effect.
If the judge legislated from the bench in this case, he would have would
have not only overturned the law but issue a further opinion that was in
effect a common law, like not only was the original law unconstitutional,
but that nudity and open displays of sex was legal anywhere in Daytona
regradless of location, like in a public school classroom or the front lawn
of a church.
Nuki Mouse
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with
my Life" Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 08:34:46 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Just because you're ashamed of your body doesn't mean the rest of us have to
be. Hit the gym, poundcake.
turk
--
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and
evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence."
-- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
22 Jan 2006 09:54:08 PM |
|
|
"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lOadnQi6xalX3UneRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Just because you're ashamed of your body doesn't mean the rest of us have
to be. Hit the gym, poundcake.
turk
Are you gay?
Seems like it.
And, what if someone does 'hit' the gym, gymboy?
--
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think
and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because
of, the lack of evidence."
-- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 12:02:53 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4pYAf.2234$vp6.1484@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lOadnQi6xalX3UneRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Just because you're ashamed of your body doesn't mean the rest of us have
to be. Hit the gym, poundcake.
turk
Are you gay?
Seems like it.
Are you asking me out?
And, what if someone does 'hit' the gym, gymboy?
Then they tend to have a better looking naked, and clothed, body. Aren't
you Christers concerned with turning "God's temples" into "God's
subdivisions"? But then again, gluttony, although one of the seven deadly
sins, will sure quicken your oh-so-anticipated meeting with your "God". So,
by all means, go for it.
turk
--
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and
evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence."
-- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 11:25:41 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4pYAf.2234$vp6.1484@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lOadnQi6xalX3UneRVn-gw@comcast.com...
snip
Just because you're ashamed of your body doesn't mean the rest of us have
to be. Hit the gym, poundcake.
turk
Are you gay?
Seems like it.
And, what if someone does 'hit' the gym, gymboy?
You either have some major issues or are just plain stupid.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
24 Jan 2006 02:40:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:25:41 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4pYAf.2234$vp6.1484@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lOadnQi6xalX3UneRVn-gw@comcast.com...
snip
Just because you're ashamed of your body doesn't mean the rest of us have
to be. Hit the gym, poundcake.
turk
Are you gay?
Seems like it.
And, what if someone does 'hit' the gym, gymboy?
You either have some major issues or are just plain stupid.
It's both.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 12:23:28 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4pYAf.2234$vp6.1484@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lOadnQi6xalX3UneRVn-gw@comcast.com...
snip
Just because you're ashamed of your body doesn't mean the rest of us have
to be. Hit the gym, poundcake.
turk
Are you gay?
Seems like it.
And, what if someone does 'hit' the gym, gymboy?
You either have some major issues or are just plain stupid.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Why do the choices have to be exclusive? He can easily be both.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 08:58:16 AM |
|
|
Again taking it up the bum, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
message news:Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com...
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense of decency, is legislated from the bench?
Legislate this, "J":
"anal stimulation with a ***** helps enhance the spanking experience."
From: (Jon Young), no "sense of decency".
Newsgroups: soc.sexuality.spanking
Subject: best done with help
Date: 5 Oct 2003 18:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <567f3dc3.0310051700.31b4eb95@posting.google.com>
LC~ Not surprised that "J" has a spanking fetish, given his daily need.
"Why is it okay to kill a baby ,but not okay to f*ck him or her?" ~ JYoung,
whining pedophile.
From: (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404252034.356729e@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ۥR.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 05:21:16 AM |
|
|
In article <Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
** It's that goddamned stupid First Amendment.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nuki Mouse" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge tosses Daytona Beach nudity law |
23 Jan 2006 09:50:52 AM |
|
|
"?.R.L.Measures" <r_@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r_-2301060321160001@192.168.1.101...
In article <Aaadnd-uJpeXqkneRVn-qw@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Why is it that every act that is an affront to the public's morals and
sense
of decency, is legislated from the bench?
** It's that goddamned stupid First Amendment.
In this case it is actually more likely the 14th amendment that was more
relevant if the law in question seem to restrict the rights or privelgies of
a certain group and/or deprive them of income without due process of the
laws. Appealing the law to a higher court is part of the "due process." If
the Judge ruled that the law was legal then due process was done, unless the
plantiffs appealed it to the Supreme Court. However the law would have been
in effect until the USSC acepted the case or decide that there was no need
to change of rule on the previous courts ruling.
Nuki Mouse
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with
my Life" Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
