In Australia, a lawyer is arguing his client was exercising a constitutional right to protest when he mooned the fuzzy wuzzies last August. The police prosecutor's indignant defense seems nevertheless ambiguous: "If we allowed everyone who wanted to drop their pants and moon police officers, we are undermining the authority of the police."
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|12.13.02 @ 1:04AM|#
Instead of worrying about threat to authority and how mooning can become speech, the Aussie police might try indecent exposure as a charge. On the other hand, the person in question might try writing something on his cheeks the next time to test the theory of protected speech.
ron|12.16.02 @ 12:39PM|#
simpsons anyone?