Blog Comments

With a quick look through her tweets, she is from Glasgow too. :P Glesga kiss battles will commence.

Gi' 'er a Glasgae kess!

Don't worry guys, I'm on the case. I'll find which part of Scotland this girl is from and I'll learn her a few things.

I really only said that as a setup to my "troutting pure anger" line. Though, as you say, it flummoxes me that people would make a big deal over new information without spending at least 30 seconds trying to understand it.

Quin: I completely agree with you that simple ignorance, by itself, is not a bad thing (and yes, pondering why this is only the 30-somethingth Olympics is a legitimate question of only mild ignorance). It is how one responds to one's own ignorance that is noteworthy. Even then, a certain level of ignorance is rather shocking, especially publicly commenting on the issue without doing the 3.5 seconds of Google searching it would take to cure that ignorance. Such public commentary and failure at interneting legitimately opens oneself up to commentary.

And the level of ignorance required to believe that there have only ever been 2,012 recorded years on Earth is absolutely shocking. Have these people ever even heard of dinosaurs? The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc.? The aforementioned YECs are the craziest people in the world about the age of the Earth, and even they put the age at 6,000 years.

I'm stand firm to my opinion that there's nothing wrong with ignorance. Everyone is ignorant of something, it's just a matter of information that we've never come across. Tolerance and joy etc. etc. For example, the question of why they're considered the thirtieth game this year is a perfectly acceptable lack of information.

Having said that, that link has made me furious that I think I'm going to trout pure anger for a week. Kudos to Leon Auty, though, for simply asking a question, as opposed Rachel Clark who had the audacity to suggest that such a conundrum could never be solved by any human. smurf you, Rachel Clark.

Our only hope is to kill these people. You know it as well as I do.

Oh my smurfing god. Raistlin please mail me a gun I can't live in this world any more.

Was it in the context of ridiculous legal jokes? Or "breach" as in a hole in a pirate ship's hull? Either of those would be acceptable.

The rap in the comic may be the law-nerdiest song I've ever seen. It's a reference to one (usually irrelevant) part of a contract of sale: when the risk of loss of the goods being sold (due to damage, etc.) switches from the seller to the buyer. That's about as obscure as it gets.

I actually made that "I got 99 problems, but a breach ain't one" joke last year, when my friends and I were thinking up stupid jokes about that song.

I'm glad I'm not the only sad bastard to come up with it.

Holy trout I am laughing so hard right now.

[quote]This has nothing to do with Section 5, but it showed up in my search due to the comments. A UK Homeowner's Association is getting Anti-Social Behavior Injunctions to prevent anti-social residents from even stepping on the street. And I thought US HOAs were ridiculous.[/quote]
I don't live in the UK, but ha. Diagnosed as such, I'd probably have to worry if I did.

Having a First Amendment makes the stupid, stupid process go by faster, at least.

I love you too, Dan.

i was scrolling down to look at the site leaders thing at the bottom of the page, saw "shlupquack is a whore" in the corner of my eye as a blog entry, clicked for comedy and ended up with this trout. you are a penile wart, wesley.

True, it is a good thing that at least appeals judges have some level of common sense, but we shouldn't be dismissive about what each defendant has gone through. It's extremely unfortunate that arrests are even being made and charges are brought and in some cases trial-level judges impose penalties. I often rave about the First Amendment, but this is a significant issue in the US too, where police and incompetent state trial judges can create a substantial burden on expression. Even if the charges are eventually dismissed, merely being harassed by police and subject to prosecution is no walk in the park, and can result in a chilling effect on free speech.

I'm not surprised that they're all met with contempt and don't get anywhere. It's a shame you can't literally laugh someone out of court, but I enjoy snarky judges well enough.

Oh man, now I can't stop digging.

Don't talk too loud in public: A Christian preacher was arrested for saying that homosexuality is a "sin" to one person... but it was "in a loud voice that could be overheard by others."

Well Scientology IS a cult: Teenager arrested for calling Scientology a "cult."

The rainbow bridle was a dead give-away: Student arrested for calling a police horse "gay." Seriously?

Don't upset dogs either: And here I thought the last story was the most absurd. This young kid was charged for growling at two dogs and upsetting their owner (who did not complain).

Just... never talk to anyone. Ever.: Hotel owners have religious discussion with Muslim guest, and then are arrested after the guest claims she was offended.

I don't have a database of UK law, so I can only do a quick Google search. It doesn't seem like many crimes under section 5 have made it into the news. That might be a good sign, but not much critical commentary has made it into the news either regarding these cases, so I doubt every case would make the internet. It looks like it's just not that big of a deal to British people unless some big names or organizations get involved. Contrast that reaction with what happens in the US when one small town no one has heard about tries to outlaw public swearing: it goes viral nationally within days.

Anyway, here's what I found:

Crown v. John Terry: charged for saying “f*** off, f*** off, yeah, yeah and you f***ing black c***, f****** knobhead." In other words, for being Cuch.

John Richards: atheist was warned of possible arrest if he put up a small "religions are fairy stories" poster in his own window. But don't worry, the police explained they weren't threatening Richards to not put up the poster; after all, he could only be arrested if the poster happened to cause offense to someone.

Denzel Harvey v. DPP: A man was charged for basically saying "smurf" to a police officer. Seriously. Not "smurf you" but stuff like "smurf this" and "you won't find smurf all."

The Good Neighborhood Agreement: This has nothing to do with Section 5, but it showed up in my search due to the comments. A UK Homeowner's Association is getting Anti-Social Behavior Injunctions to prevent anti-social residents from even stepping on the street. And I thought US HOAs were ridiculous.

Are there any case using the Public Order Act s.5? I wonder what sort of things our system would actually bother prosecuting for.