Maryland about to lose it's nuts?

[vraiblonde]

Uh, when they were riding in their carts behind the ox pulling it, I have a feeling they were well used to seeing huge swinging meaty balls in front of them on their own vehicle.



And here is where you have a problem with your argument. How is hanging balls for gratification? Please don't say that some people will get off on seeing them because people can get off on seeing anything. Some people get off on seeing stuffed animals for instance (plushies), so anything can be claimed to be for sexual gratification by someone.
Second, we all know what some people call art nowadays can be absolutely anything they and one other person see as "art". Art is subjective and there are masterpieces out there that I think are trash, but just because I think they are trash does not mean someone else considers it art.
Third, free expression isn't just about art.
Fourth, it is not a just test of it being art to be protected free speech, rather it has to be proven to be indecent and this does NOT pass that test because it does not describe or depict the sexual act.....end of story.


You don't like the way our laws are, then move to a country that makes hanging balls illegal to be seen and doesn't have a First Amendment, or try and get the states to ratify an Amendment to repeal the First's protection of free speech. Until then your protests mean nothing.

I am not a wussie state legislator or ambulance-chasing lawyer, so you can save your pretzel logic and silliness.

Hanging balls is not speech. That's very cute of you to try and say it is, but I'm not an idiot.

And I'm also not going to engage in your ridiculous argument that crap like that is "art" and not for gratification.

Exposed genitalia is indeed covered under indecency laws, regardless of whether you like it or not. Possibly those freak lawmakers should consider getting a pair of balls of their own.

And if YOU don't like it, sir, then YOU can move to a country that allows that sort of thing.

 

[MMDad]

I saw some guy ( rainbow sticker in the truck back window ) with an erect male member sticking straight out of the Class III Hitch on his truck ............ in rush hour traffic headed in to DC on 295 yrs ago ........

That meets the definition of obscene in Maryland and could be prosecuted.

 

[vraiblonde]

Maryland law:

Thank you.

Bumper balls meet EVERY one of those criteria, and are therefore covered under obscenity laws.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I am not a wussie state legislator or ambulance-chasing lawyer, so you can save your pretzel logic and silliness.

Hanging balls is not speech. That's very cute of you to try and say it is, but I'm not an idiot.

And I'm also not going to engage in your ridiculous argument that crap like that is "art" and not for gratification.

Exposed genitalia is indeed covered under indecency laws, regardless of whether you like it or not. Possibly those freak lawmakers should consider getting a pair of balls of their own.

And if YOU don't like it, sir, then YOU can move to a country that allows that sort of thing.

Oh my, the pedophiles would love this indecent exposure of genitals on or mail: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/webstuff/bible/nakedbaby.html
I think it indecent. I am going to call for a law to ban such disgusting images!

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Oh my, the pedophiles would love this indecent exposure of genitals on or mail: 1 Chronicles 21
I think it indecent. I am going to call for a law to ban such disgusting images!

Just take the balls off your truck and grow up.

 

[White Buddah]

Thank you.

Bumper balls meet EVERY one of those criteria, and are therefore covered under obscenity laws.

It doesn't fully meet the criteria of iii. The balls have serious political value. Look what laws and arguements it is causing.

 

[MMDad]

Thank you.

Bumper balls meet EVERY one of those criteria, and are therefore covered under obscenity laws.

Still, there is one problem. If I were retarded enough to have them on my bumper, and I were charged, I'd have the perfect defense:

Me: "Your honor, these are not depicting human testicles. These are twice the size of human testicles. These depict bovine testicles."

Judge: "Case dismissed."

Of course there's the other side of this. Would anyone retarded enough to have these on their truck be smart enough to succesfully defend it?

 

[vegmom]

Of course there's the other side of this. Would anyone retarded enough to have these on their truck be smart enough to succesfully defend it?

What about those who steal them off someone elses truck?

I can hear that call to the police...some guy claiming someone stole his

 

[Novus Collectus]

Thank you.

Bumper balls meet EVERY one of those criteria, and are therefore covered under obscenity laws.

Truck driver Wayne Baker's bumper inspired a similar legal tangle. A commander with the Alabama Department of Public Safety stopped Baker on the highway and warned him that his bumper sticker — “How’s My Driving? Call 1-800-2-EAT ####!” — violated a new Alabama obscenity law. That law provided: “It shall be unlawful for any person to display in public any bumper sticker, sign or writing which depicts obscene language descriptive of sexual or excretory activities.”

The officer told Baker to remove the sticker or face punishment. Baker agreed to scratch out the offending language. The truck driver then filed a federal lawsuit, charging that the obscenity law violated his free-expression rights.

U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson agreed with Baker, finding that his bumper sticker was not obscene under the law. Obscenity refers to a narrow range of hard-core sexual materials. In its 1973 decision Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out the following guidelines for determining when material is legally obscene:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
Whether a reasonable person would find the material lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, taken as a whole.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=bumper_stickers

 

[vraiblonde]

firstamendmentcenter.org: Personal & public expression in Speech - Topic

So what? There's a judge out there who makes their own rules. Big shock there.

Obscenity refers to a narrow range of hard-core sexual materials.

Obviously that's not true, according to the definition given:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.

Whether a reasonable person would find the material lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, taken as a whole.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Maryland law:

(i) less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; or

This could be used to prosecute if it was desired.

The only defense would be if these were supposed to be bull testicles, not human. Then there is nothing prohibiting the display.

I believe that is for human beings. If it applied to innanimate objects, then there are many churches and museums in Maryland commiting sex crimes with their depictions of nude Greek God, Jesus, Adam or angels paintings and statues.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

vrai, in my personal opinion..

your view on quite a few topics simply sucks :shrug:

you go from saying that these things should be illegal and banned, to complaining because there are too many whiny people causing laws (like the one you just proposed) to be put into effect, to going back and saying that the things should be banned.

I can feel confident that you feel your cigs should be legal to be smoked wherever you want. If you want things like this to be legal, then why would you try to take away the rights of a dumb ass who wants some balls hanging off his truck? Its his right to have those things dangling (or should be his right). If he wants to be a tard, let him. If you want to inhale various toxins, thats fine too :shrug:.

Lets either

A. Stop b******* and moaning about every little thing and keep our rights to do various things that really aren't hurting anyone...

OR

B. Ban every thing that is either offensive, possibly harmful, ect. because there is no way everyone is going to be satisfied by just banning X thing or Y thing...


lets grow up people. are these things really hurting anything?

 

[Novus Collectus]

So what? There's a judge out there who makes their own rules. Big shock there.


Obviously that's not true, according to the definition given:

If the exposure of balls is sexual and is a " work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest", then so are public depictions of nude Jesus, nude Adam, and Michalangelo's David because they show balls in public too.

 

[vraiblonde]

your view on quite a few topics simply sucks

Well, then we're even because I think your view on quite a few topics sucks as well.

 

[MMDad]

I believe that is for human beings.

(d) Matter.- "Matter" means:

(1) a book, magazine, newspaper, or other printed or written material;


(2) a picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture, or other pictorial representation;


(3) a statue or other figure;


(4) a recording, transcription, or mechanical, chemical, or electrical reproduction; or


(5) any other article, equipment, machine, or material.

If it applied to innanimate objects, then there are many churches and museums in Maryland commiting sex crimes with their depictions of nude Greek God, Jesus, Adam or angels paintings and statues.

That fails this test:

(iii) that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic, educational, literary, political, or scientific value.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Just take the balls off your truck and grow up.

One, I don't have a truck.
Two, I would never put hanging balls on my truck.
Three, I personally find them indecent
.....but I don't think my definition of indecent should be everyone elses and I will fight for their right to offend me by hanging disgusting balls on their trucks.

 

[MMDad]

If the exposure of balls is sexual and is a " work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest", then so are public depictions of nude Jesus, nude Adam, and Michalangelo's David because they show balls in public too.

That has artistic value, so you are wrong.

 

[Pete]

One, I don't have a truck.
Two, I would never put hanging balls on my truck.
Three, I personally find them indecent
.....but I don't think my definition of indecent should be everyone elses and I will fight for their right to offend me by hanging disgusting balls on their trucks.

Is that a fancy way of saying you are a chronic other way looker?

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Well, then we're even because I think your view on quite a few topics sucks as well.

care to explain your apparent view that "things I find unacceptable should be banned, but not other things because they're...ok with me...and it really doesn't matter what other people think"?

One, I don't have a truck.
Two, I would never put hanging balls on my truck.
Three, I personally find them indecent
.....but I don't think my definition of indecent should be everyone elses and I will fight for their right to offend me by hanging disgusting balls on their trucks.

 

[vraiblonde]

If the exposure of balls is sexual and is a " work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest", then so are public depictions of nude Jesus, nude Adam, and Michalangelo's David because they show balls in public too.

I see. So a 400 year old statue is the same to you as a pair of balls on a truck bumper.

Again, save your silly comparisons and rationalizations for someone who's stupid enough to buy into it.