Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Australian Argues for Freedom of Mooning 55

Carl Brewer submits this blurb about an unusual freedom of speech argument.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Argues for Freedom of Mooning

Comments Filter:
  • by longbottle ( 537395 ) <delphine.twcny@rr@com> on Friday November 29, 2002 @05:01PM (#4781403) Homepage
    So... now it's OK to say yes to crack!? When did THIS happen?!
  • Jeez (Score:2, Funny)

    Next thing you know, they'll be asking for FREEDOM OF CRAPFLOODING!

    code awards journals subscribe older stuff rob's page preferences submit story advertising supporters past polls topics about bugs jobs hof Sections apache Nov 25 apple Nov 29 (3 recent) askslashdot Nov 29 (17 recent) books Nov 29 (2 recent) bsd Nov 29 (2 recent) developers Nov 28 (7 recent) features Nov 29 (1 recent) interviews Nov 18 radio Jun 29 science Nov 28 (11 recent) yro Nov 29 (7 recent) Australian Argues for Freedom of Mooning Posted by michael on Friday November 29, @04:57PM from the i-come-from-the-land-down-underwear dept. Carl Brewer submits this blurb about an unusual freedom of speech argument. Slashdot Login Nickname: Password: [ Create a new account ] Related Links Carl Brewer unusual freedom of speech argument More on Censorship Also by michael Your Rights Online MS Asking Makers of 'Windows' Software To Rename ZDNet Australia Interviews Richard Alston Record the Surveillance Cams Ireland To Check EVerything A Birds-Eye View of Online Censorship American Companies Help China Censor the Net Security and Privacy in the US Death Of The Global Information Infrastructure Canadian Privacy Commissioner Addresses 'Lawful Access' Speaking Out For Free Software In India Australian Argues for Freedom of Mooning | Log in/Create an Account | Top | Search Discussion Threshold: -1: 0 comments 0: 0 comments 1: 0 comments 2: 0 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN. [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]
  • by satanami69 ( 209636 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @05:05PM (#4781423) Homepage
    "Magistrate Sheryl Cornack adjourned the case until December 13 to allow time for the federal and state attorneys-general to consider a response."

    I think the delay might be to let Sheryl do some squats before showing her response.
  • by rm -vrf ( 212851 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @05:09PM (#4781441)
    Australian authorities have released the goatse guy, who was in their custody after an incident involving a passing police car, a jelly doughnut, and a koala bear.
  • Fuck the draft (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @05:18PM (#4781479) Homepage
    Now that I have your attention...

    Free speech cheerleaders that Americans are, I'm pretty sure this bare argument would get skewered in court, at least on public indecency grounds. Certainly you have the right to give a cop the finger, though I really really recommend you don't.

    There was a classic SC case ( Cohen [epic.org]) during the Vietnam War a man was observed in a couthouse corridor wearing a jacket emblazoned "Fuck the draft" on the back. He went into a courtroom, first taking the jacket off, and was arrested.

    His conviction was overturned because the Court felt he had not crossed the line between his right of expression and the court's need for decorum (you couldn't break into song during a trial, for example, unless maybe you were a defendant pleading insanity :).

    So there is a time, manner, place for different kinds of expression, even uncivil ones. I'm just not picturing the place for expressive mooning ... besides a nude beach. I remember a football coach at my high school getting canned for mooning a female math teacher, but that was private school -- no First Amendment.
    • Well, this is more of an opinion than fact, but a few states, including my own have declared that mooning is not considered indecent exposure. Some judge makes this simple descision only to have it reversed by someone in a higher court who has religiously backed 'morals'. Many rulings get overturned based on one persons FUNDamentalism. Another example; most of the people in my state want a lottery. The religious right doesn't, saying it's a sin. And the last thing we want is someone sinning against, uh, themselves. Of course this is just me bitching about the fundies again. Sorry for wasting your time.
      • Re:Fuck the draft (Score:2, Interesting)

        by MacAndrew ( 463832 )
        I notice you omit which state. :)

        Personally I hope not to see anyone's butt in a nonconsensual situation. But (heh) it's nice to know we have that freedom.

        I suppose mooning would be illegal in a situation where it might incite immediate violence. Just a word to the wise.
    • Re:Fuck the draft (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Caid Raspa ( 304283 )
      (you couldn't break into song during a trial, for example, unless maybe you were a defendant pleading insanity :)

      Maybe this is a bit offtopic, but I have heard of a few cases of singing defendants (surprisingly, in a 'fuck the draft' case). Here in Finland inciting someone to break the law is a crime. We also have obligatory military service. If you have a religious/political/ethical non-violent views, you are exempted and allowed to serve 'civil service'. (Which takes 13 months, the most common period of armed service is 6 months)

      In the old days, your non-violent views were evaluated by a commitee (A priest, an army officer and a 'layman'), often asking questions like 'What would you do if the Martians invade Earth?'. If they decided your case was not strong enough, you were sent to the army. Refusing to serve in army after a negative committee decision was crime. The committee system was revoked by ridiculing the law. People made petitions asking those, who got a negative decision, to refuse armed service. After this, they reported themselves to the police. Lists collecting signatures were circulated.

      Several thousand people made it to the court. A few poets and singers presented their cases to the court as songs and poems. People set up a contest of 'who gets the longest prison sentence'. Finally, the president got fed up, and made a general amnesty of all the people involved. The committee system was revoked, and now your concience is tested by 'mark this box if religious, that if ethical'

      • Interesting. Of course Finland hasn't been invaded for a while, or gone to war, the latter to its credit. Here in the States we're apparently to go to war every ten years or so -- I missed that in the rule book, oops.

        The draft in the U.S. was suspended in the 70's after the Vietnam debacle. Draft registration was revived by President Carter, but we still have an all-volunteer army/navy/etc., making the decision whether to go to war rather different.
  • by hitzroth ( 60178 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @05:30PM (#4781526)
    have the right to bear arms...
  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @10:23PM (#4782292)
    What a Beowulf cluster of these guys would look like?
  • Has anybody heard the term "larrikin moon" (used in the article) before? This is a new one for me, and Google came up empty.
    • Re:Strange term (Score:4, Informative)

      by catslaugh ( 443278 ) <.gro.lavsgruma. .ta. .namhtols.> on Saturday November 30, 2002 @03:27AM (#4782980) Homepage
      Hitting the Google glossary [google.com] yielded a New Zild Glossary [prohosting.com] which defines a "larrikin" as an "unruly person", a term which originated in 19th century Melbourne.
    • Re:Strange term (Score:3, Informative)

      by os2fan ( 254461 )
      These are australian terms, hon.

      While Larrikin is usually glossed as an unruly person, over here it carries aslo the sort of connetations of the innocent mischief young adults get up to. Something like a "hood", I suppose. A lot of our words do not translate to american, since ours carry shades of meaning not present in the American.

      Moon (v intrans) means to show the exposed backside, often in a reverse bow. It sort of looks like the moon, if the pants are dropped to mid thigh. Don't forget, we see the moon right-way up, not upside down as you do in the Northern hemisphere.

      "larrikin moon" then translates to a moon as a harmless mischief. Something about three orders up to giving what the americans use the "finger".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30, 2002 @05:15AM (#4783189)
    "Magistrate Sheryl Cornack adjourned the case until December 13 to allow time for the federal and state attorneys-general to consider a response."

    Does this mean the attorneys-general are preparing to present their rebuttal?
  • Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1969
    To: All Employees
    Subject: Mooning and our Corporate Dress Code

    As your CEO, it has come to my attention that many people are violating the Corporate Dress Code through mooning.

    According to our Dress Code policy, mooning is prohibited and it is not tolerated. Those caught will be punished with 100 lashes on their bare bottoms followed by immediate termination. This will be done with extreme prejudice.

    Our Corporate Dres Code is there for your benefit. We must be professionals and work should be serious, not enjoyable.

    Sincerely,

    You Corporate CEO
  • Similar Case (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Saturday November 30, 2002 @04:15PM (#4784946) Homepage
    I remember a while ago here in the states (might have been on a tv show, i can't keep it straight, ripped from the headlines and what not). Some flasher was arrested for indecent exposure, but he argued that since he had some political message writen on his piece that he was protected by the first amendment. I think he lost, still interesting though.
    • It was a TV episode not a real event (unless the episode was based on the event). He was arguing that he saw a bunch of girls smoking, and - to get noticed - had written an anti-smoking message on his fleshy little friend.
      But yeah, perhaps these guys saw that episode as well and decided to try it for mooning?
  • I wonder if his punishment will be to be kicked in the bum with an enormous boot?
  • You can make this possible in the US, too, by donating to moonthewhitehouse.com [moonthewhitehouse.com].
  • The offence, ...., became a sticky constitutional issue.... (emphasis mine)

    Something about seeing the word "sticky" in an article about mooning makes me think this wasn't proofread.

Life is a game. Money is how we keep score. -- Ted Turner

Working...