SumTingWong

SumTingWong

91p

1,029 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court tosses F... · 1 reply · +6 points

Brace yourself for the onslaught of no-talent, vocabulary-challanged, no-class "stars" using shock tactics to boost their ratings.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Supreme Court tosses F... · 1 reply · +1 points

Off switch doesn't do you much good AFTER the fact.
Kind of like buying a condom after you find out your girlfriend is pregnant, isn't it?

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - House committee holds ... · 2 replies · -11 points

I see all the right-wing partisans have shown up for the "discussion" of this article.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not if it gets you arrested and charged.

I don't care if the charges are ultimately dropped. The cops can't charge you with it if it isn't "illegal" in some rule/ordinance/statuate somewhere (and everyone keeps harping on the Oregon STATE statuates but ignore that the guy I'm talking about was charged for violating a CITY ordinance) and the "charge" would never survive the first court appearance if it were, in fact, a bogus violation.

And EVERYONE seems to want to ignore my main point .... selective enforcement of a questionable ordinance based on an "unpopular" viewpoint. So much for equal treatment under the law.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 0 replies · +4 points

For dblshot and WCA ---

Airports may fall under a different jurisdiction and the PofP my be a "region ... with it's own set of rules" but if the location of the alleged offense had any bearing on the charges you would expect the court used to reflect that. Ports (including ship/rail/air) are under the purview of Homeland Security and/or TSA, which are federal agencies. Any breaking of those rules would be a federal offense and would be tried in a federal court. Brennan last appeared in a Multnomah County Court charged with violating a city of Portland ordinance.

"Brennan is charged with "indecent exposure," a Portland city ordinance that says it's unlawful for "any person to expose his or her genitalia while in a public place or place visible from a public place, if the public place is open and available to persons of the opposite sex." State law allows nudity -- as long as it isn't done to sexually arouse oneself or others." (from an Oregonian article here: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012... )

The point I was trying to make remains. Selective application of a questionable ordinance. So much for equal treatment under the law.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 1 reply · +2 points

I suggest you tell Portland Police that they charged a man with a crime that the court says is protected right. Let me know how that goes for you.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 3 replies · -2 points

I am not trying to back up anything. I am simply pointing out that nudity is not necessarily okay/legal in Portland. I am simply pointing out that one guy is being railroaded while others doing the same thing will be ignored. So much for equal treatment under the law.

The guy from the airport WILL have legal expenses. You claim being naked is a protected free speech. Why don't YOU back up your words and go fund that guys legal bills?

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 3 replies · +4 points

The fact remains that he was charged with public indecency. Last I heard he was awaiting a trial date.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 7 replies · -8 points

They should all be arrested for public indecency just like the guy at the airport that did a protest strip a few months ago.

13 years ago @ KATU - Portland, OR - Heads up everyone - th... · 5 replies · +5 points

Then why is John Brennan facing public indecency charges for stripping down at the airport to protest excessive intrusion by the TSA?