Porn for the Road

Finally, a vice collar I can understand. This dope was rolling his Benz near a police station with his DVD player spinning porn. Unmarked cop saw Chocolate Foam while behind the Mercedes. Cue blue lights.

You simply cannot ambush people with porn. Driving down the road I have reasonable expectation of not being exposed to porn. That is what broadband is for, right?

(via Obscurestore.)

Comments

[Eric]

Mo,
What? I have a web site? 🙂

ri asked a very good question, and I just wanted to show that there are a lot of issues that aren't in the Constitution. Miranda, for example, may be a good idea, or good public policy, but it's not in the Constitution. Same with separation of church and state - that phrase is not there, though it may be good policy. Judges having the LAST WORD on laws and public policy is not in the Constitution (judicial REVIEW is, but not judicial SUPREMACY), though some may prefer it that way (I do not).

[Critic]

Eric,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Sounds like separation to me.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

"Judges having the LAST WORD on laws and public policy is not in the Constitution (judicial REVIEW is, but not judicial SUPREMACY), though some may prefer it that way (I do not)."

Wrong. The words judicialy review do not apppear there; and though it is clear from Madison's notes on the convention that indeed judicial review was contemplated and expected (due to similar doctrines in the American colonial courts and in the metropole), those notes did become available until 1840, thirty-seven years after such review was established firmly in 1803 (some cases had mentioned the subject prior to that) by Justice Marshall.

[Jean Bart]

did not become available

[Eric]

JB,
Didn't say the words were - I refered to the separation of church and state phrase not being there. But as you demonstrate,the concept certainly was.

Critic,
As you know, that phrase refers to the feds establishing an official religion or church, as several of the states had at the time. Hard to get from that to "City councils shall not display manger scenes in public places," but we've come to that point just the same.

[an apostate]

City councils, no. Anyone else not part of government, sure. Get the difference?

[Eric]

Apostate,
"Congress shall make no law."

"City council."

Get the difference?

[Mo]

Eric,
Check the 14th Amendment.

[an apostate]

Let me help you out there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In order to keep that fine line sharp as a razor, government has a choice: nativity scenes, Yule scenes, Hanukah scenes and a nonexistent deity knows what else together, or nothing. I suggest nothing is easier, but if the gates are open for everyone, sure, why not. But it is an obligation made upon Congress, superceding what city councils may wish to do. Get the difference?

[Eric]

Mo,
Well aware of the 14th amendment, and that the rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to the states. In my opinion, a city council allowing a manger scene (or menorah or anything else) is not a "law" that "establishes a religion."

[Ignorant Law Student]

For me, it all boils down to the hypothetical.

I have two neighbors. Both occasionally blast their stereos in the middle of the night, violating noise restrictions. But one blasts Brahm's Lullabye, which I have no trouble falling asleep to, and the other broadcasts racist death metal, which is quite disruptive. I only call the cops on the one who plays the metal.

Now, assuming everything else is equal, this leaves the law in a state where it's difficult to take any position. We could say that the noise ordinance is unenforceable, but that allows one person to continue disrupting my sleep, which is an intrusion on my liberty. We could enforce the law against everyone, but that means behavior no one believes is objectionable gets prohibited, an unjust result. Or we could continue as is, and one person could get punished because I don't like him.

None of these are particularly good options.

[Mo]

I was merely noting that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply solely to Congress. I personally think th whole manger thing is dumb. I was raised Muslim and my parents didn't care that I sang religious Christmas carols or was in a Christmas play. I also think it's pretty cool seeing the stamps for Ramadan. I'm agnostic, I don't have a dog in the race. However, I think if the city council put up a sign in public parks that said, "Jesus sucks dick" (let's say it's San Francisco's), lots of people would be rightfully upset. It wouldn't be a "law respecting an establishment of religion" or preventing the "free exercise thereof," but people would complain that the government shouldn't denigrate specific religions. Well, flip it around and you'll see how some people feel about the manger or a 10 Commandments posting.

[Mo]

ILS,
Actually, when I was in college my fraternity blasted Beethoven and Mozart, just to see if we'd get complaints (this was at 10 AM on a Sat). Sure enough, cops stopped by and they just started to laugh. I think we made their day.

Actually, it is fair to leave the Brahms on as long as no one complains about it. Once someone complains about it, then it must be treated equally with the racist death metal (some people don't like Brahms). Same goes for the manger scenes, it's unobjectional to most, but if it's technically illegal and someone complains good jurisprudence demands that it be treated equally.

[dj of raleigh]

>Could someone please direct me to the parts of the constitution that mention "prurient interest" or define "community standards"?

[Jacob Grier]

Am I wrong to assume this guy had automatic transmission?

[Ignorant Law Student]

Mo - I'm a big fan of the Eid stamps too.

As for music-blasting, I understand the "no harm, no foul" point, but at some semantic level, it still seems unfair to have what amounts to a content-based restriction using a seemingly evenhanded law.

Which brings me to the Establishment Clause: when is providing no support to a religion evenhanded, and when is it such than it can be argued that the government is establishing atheism?

[Linda]

I know this might be a minuscule detail, but all automobiles that I know of, are in the back of the vehicle and don't allow for adequate viewing of the driver. So, essentially, this guy was arrested for "listening" to porn. Give him the moron of the week award for that alone.

[Linda]

Automobile DVD players, I meant. Still haven't had my coffee.

[jat]

Linda:

With the kits and players now out there, believe me, you could install 3 DVD players in the front of the car and 4 more in the back.

Progress!

[Linda]

Well, I didn't know that. I haven't seen one installed in the front. I would be interested to know if that is the case with this guy. While I still think it's idiotic to watch porn where it can be advertised to the world, I would think him less of a moron for simply being able to see it.

[ewilliam]

Linda,

I read the MSNBC article. It says that one of the charges brought against Mr. Gainey was "watching a movie while driving". Granted, the last thing I am is a car-trickout-guy, but any casual browsing through a Crutchfield catalog or Circuit City stereo dept. will reveal that there are most definitely in-dash DVD systems. Some can be built into the dash, others are are part of the audio head unit, and "flip out" from the dash.

And here, I'm worried about people not paying attention because they're yammering away on their cell. Hmph. Well, now I can say, "at least they're not watching a skin flick as they run that red light". Jeff Taylor mentions that he has the reasonable expectation to not see porn when he looks over at the next car. To that, I would say, yeah, sure, but more importantly, I have the reasonable expectation that the other drivers on the road aren't endangering my life and everyone else's by watching TV, whether it be porn or the Price is Right.

You know, if I looked to my right at a stoplight and BAM, there's a hot sex scene playing out in someone's dash, I think I'd get over it rather quickly. On the other hand, I think it'd take me a mite longer to get over having my car totaled (and bodily harm possibly inflicted upon me) by some guy running a red light because he was busy watching a movie.

This story is unique in that the guy was watching a porno flick; it's not unique in that people aren't paying enough attention to actually operating their automobile.

[Doc]

As someone who lives in Albany and near where this happened, the guy got into REAL trouble by then signing a false name when he was taken into police custody.

Einstein, he ain't. 🙂

[rj]

Interesting... Could someone please direct me to the parts of the constitution that mention "prurient interest" or define "community standards"? All I keep finding are mentions of "freedom"...

[an apostate]

ILS, an excellent question. Wish I knew the answer. But, I'll give it a shot.

I am not sure the absence of support for religion is support for atheism, in the same way that the absence of support for the belief that purple monsters lurk under your bed at night is not support for the belief that they do not exist.

[JimInNoVA]

I have no problem with a back seat passenger watching porn. I don't even have a problem with the drive stopping the car and putting it in park to watch porn. But I have to agree, if he's watching porn while driving down the highway it becomes a safety issue.

[nobody]

Well, as long as he keeps one hand on the wheel...

[Kevin Carson]

ewilliam,

There was a story back in the '80s about a guy who jacknifed a truck because he was drinking beer and masturbating while driving.

[Ick!]

Could they tell which foam was which?

[Overlord]

He wasn't arrested for watching or listening to the movie, he was arrested for displaying the movie in such a way, that people could see easily view it, whether they wanted to or not. Big difference.

[Critic]

Yup. I was distracted by "Lion King" while lodged behind an SUV full of kids. It's hard not to look when there's nowhere to go and you're stuck behind that big steel ass.

[Critic]

C- on the sarcasm, SF.

[wondering]

Are Stephen Fetchit and joe the same person?

[nobody]

Might be, Wondering. It's fun to guess. I have 10 aliases myself. I especially enjoy pretending to be a female poster. Whole different brain processes there, I'll tell ya.

[Jean Bart]

Tr?s, tr?s stupide.

[MK]

This has been a social trend for several years now.
What I don't get is how folks are finding more ways to be distracted behind the wheel and "no fault" insurance laws are not even being challanged (in the States, that is).

[Mo]

I saw this idiot driving down the road watching a movie from a flip screen that came down from around where the sun visor was. Not only was he the fastest and most agressive driver, but he couldn't stay in his lane. Not a good combo.

I read an article in the OC Register that this is a growing problem in SoCal. Apparently, all the people stuck in traffic have been installing these systems to watch in bumper to bumper traffic. The cops are pulling over dead sober people that drove like drunk drivers. No wonder there are more idiots on the road than before.

[Eric]

Ri asks:

"Interesting... Could someone please direct me to the parts of the constitution that mention "prurient interest" or define "community standards"? All I keep finding are mentions of "freedom"..."

Those are in the same parts of the constitution requiring Miranda warnings, gay marriage, judicial supremacy, and the separation of church and state.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Those also come under the rubric of freedom; but then again, what the hell would you know about freedom? You are, after all, in thralldom to an omnipotent deity who commits genocide for pleasure.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

That is, for example:

(a) the freedom from the state robbing you to support a state church;

(b) the freedom from a tyranny of the majority (which is why your nation's founders created Art. III courts in the first);

and (c) the freedom to be free from the prejudiced views concerning personal autonomy.

Let's face it Eric; you aren't for freedom; what you are for is some theonomist, Taleban style state where you and your clique of the "moral elect" can decide what freedoms people may and may not have.

[dhex]

if i were unfortunate enough to drive and got into an accident because some fucktard installed a FUCKING DVD SCREEN IN HIS DASHBOARD...that fucker'd be dead by the time the cops got there. i'd make him EAT that shit one screw at a time.

regardless of what he was watching, porn, bible tales, dragonball z, whatever...you have to be some sort of super tardbunny to think this is a good idea.

[Mullah Omar]

Oh, JB, you found me out. Let's hope the CIA isn't as competent.

[Wasting time, mostly]

I have noticed that sex sells very well at this site. Paradoxically, there is almost no mention of sports. Lots of boob talk, but no sports-radio-boob talk.
Note to NFL: Maybe you really don't need cleavage to sell your sport.

[Picker of Nits]

dhex,

Still using "fucktard"?
That's so 2003.

[Jean Bart]

Mullah Omar (Eric),

Well, pray reveal, what is the difference? Its obvious that you want state supported churches, you want law based on the Bible, etc. This is the theonomist line of reasoning plain and simple.

[matt]

Damn JB. That seems a bit harsh. I'm guessing you're an athiest?

And, while there are some (or perhaps many) Christians want to use the state to enforce their morality, there are others who just want the state to leave them alone.

[Jean Bart]

matt,

Yes, I am an atheist. And it is not harsh in this particular situation.

[Linda]

"regardless of what he was watching, porn, bible tales, dragonball z, whatever...you have to be some sort of super tardbunny to think this is a good idea."

I couldn't agree more, which is why I cant even imagine why someone would do that in the first place. I'm ecstatic that my new automobile has radio controls on the steering wheel so that I take my eyes off the road a whole lot less. But changing the radio pales in comparison to watching a movie, as distractions go. What's next, surfing the Internet while you drive?

I still go back to the idea of whether he was indeed watching the movie, even though I know that is not the reason for the arrest. There is no doubt that the decisions he made with regard to this situation were, at best, given little thought. But, if he was listening to a movie instead of watching it...

[Mo]

dhex,
I'm w/ you on this. Maybe it'll be a little chlorine for the gene pool. Part of me wanted to let that tardbunny hit me (our vehicles were both Japanese coupes, so not as dangerous as an SUV collision) so I could beat, sue and sic my insurance on his ass to teach him a lesson. All I know is if I got pulled over during that drive I was prepared to tattle on him to get the law off my back. As you can see, I was not in a pleasant mood that day.

[Grillmaster]

Personally, I can't wait to install my dashboard hibachi. Then, watch out!

[Mo]

Eric,
You should hire JB as your publicist. I had no desire to go to your webpage until JB went off.

What was it that set u off JB?

[dhex]

picker: fucktard is eternal, like god, but less fictional.

disturbingly enough, "fucktard uber alles" actually has a pretty good swing to it.

[Russ]

"What's next, surfing the Internet while you drive?"

That shouldn't be tough. Given the success of digital wireless devices, I don't imagine that we'll have long to wait before Sprint or Verizon or someone sets up with a wide area 802.11g network. Hell, for all I know I'm already providing such a service to everyone within a quarter mile radius of my apartment.

Plunk your Centrino laptop in the passenger seat beside you and surf to your hearts content.

Bit of a side story... while I did the 9 day drive across Canada five years ago, I downloaded hundreds of mp3 tunes onto my laptop, got a cassette adapter and set up my "Improvised iPod" in the passengers seat so I could listen to the music from the harddrive, through my car stereo while I drove. I'll admit, I got a few strange looks and gestures from passers-by who assumed that I was driving and doing computer work at the same time.

[Don]

Hey, while watching one of the automotive channels on cable (sitting at home, I should add), they showed some Rice Rockets that were all pimped up: including multiple (as in 3) DVD players. One mounted in the center of the steering wheel.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

"Didn't say the words were - I refered to the separation of church and state phrase not being there."

Alright, then let's compare this statement with your original statement.

"Miranda, for example, may be a good idea, or good public policy, but it's not in the Constitution. Same with separation of church and state - that phrase is not there, though it may be good policy. Judges having the LAST WORD on laws and public policy is not in the Constitution (judicial REVIEW is, but not judicial SUPREMACY), though some may prefer it that way (I do not)."

Your original statements concerning Miranda and "seperation of church" clearly intimate that you are some sort of moronic extreme textualist; you follow these statements with a statement concerning the court's power of judicial review. It is easy to infer what you mean by this; that indeed, the words judicial review appear in the U.S. Constitution. Do you always try to lie as boldly as this? 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

"Well aware of the 14th amendment, and that the rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to the states. In my opinion, a city council allowing a manger scene (or menorah or anything else) is not a 'law' that 'establishes a religion.'"

That wasn't your original line of argument and you know it; your original argument was that the language didn't apply to this "city council" because it applied only to Congress.

Or let me repeat your statment for effect:

"'Congress shall make no law.'

'City council.'

Get the difference?"

I thought liars went to hell, Eric?

[Eric]

"That wasn't your original line of argument and you know it."

So? I can't make another argument? Is that against JB's law of debate? I was just trying to answer a question in the terms it was asked. For the record, I don't believe the so-called separation clause applies to local city councils. But even if it did, it would make no difference, because displaying a religious symbol in public doesn't establish a religion.

I'm beginning to think that I could say something, like, "the sky is blue," and Jean Bart would flame back:

"LIAR! Not at night, you theofascist %#@!"

[passing through]

But he would be right, wouldn't he?

[dj of raleigh]

> the government is establishing atheism?

[dj of raleigh]

He needs to be given a "STUPID" sign to wear.

To think of the mentality of the man in a Mercedes,
riding around watching porn on the visor screen,
seems paradoxical.

[Hornick Andrea]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 09:48:33
The meaning of life is that it stops.