Don't Kiss In Public. It Is Against The Law

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    May 29, 2011 7:47 AM GMT
    Don't Kiss In Public. It Is Against The Law



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkHg3M6eUB8


    hmmm....I think that they may have been trying to cause trouble. But do not know for sure. I don't know if something happened just prior to this being filmed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 1:10 PM GMT
    Doesn't Singapore have some crazy-ass laws against PDA?
  • Devoted

    Posts: 8

    May 29, 2011 5:07 PM GMT
    I'm not 100% sure if some of the responses on this website are true, but there seems to have been some kind of court decision that banned dancing at the memorial and the response was for people to go to the memorial and dance. Again, I'm not sure; however, if that was the case, these people were breaking the law and were told by the local law enforcement to stop.

    http://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk/591298-couple-arrested-kissing-dancing-public.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 5:16 PM GMT
    its ok, touching your sleeping spouse is now rape in Canada. Or kissing them, or caressing them...Thanks Supreme Court.

    CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - Having sex with someone who is unconscious constitutes sexual assault, even when the victim consents during relations to being choked to the point of blacking out, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday.


    In a six to three decision, the top court overturned an Ontario appeal court ruling and reinstated a sexual assault conviction on a man who had sex with his partner during an mutually agreed-upon erotic asphyxiation session.

    "The definition of consent for sexual assault requires the complainant to provide active actual consent throughout every phase of sexual activity," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority, said. "It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance."

    The case involves an Ottawa couple, referred to as J.A. and K.D. During sex one evening in 2007, J.A. placed his hands around K.D.'s throat and choked her until she was unconscious, according to testimony.

    K.D. testified she consented to being asphyxiated and that the couple had experimented with the activity before. She said she was out cold for less than three minutes.

    Upon coming to, she realized her hands were tied behind her back and that J.A. was inserting a dildo into her anus.

    He removed the implement 10 seconds after she regained consciousness and the couple had vaginal intercourse. J.A. cut her hands loose when they were done, according to the testimony.

    K.D. filed a complaint with police two months later, saying she had consented to being asphyxiated but not to the sexual activity. She later recanted the story, saying she made the allegation because J.A. threatened to seek sole custody of their young son.

    After a trial, J.A. was found guilty of sexual assault. The Ontario Court of Appeal later set aside the conviction and dismissed the charges.

    The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, which intervened in the case, hailed the Supreme Court decision for affirming legal protection for women who are vulnerable to sexual assault by predatory men.

    The case is R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28.

    This doesnt share the dissenting opinion of the other judges who state that the law goes to far now and that kissing and caressing a sleeping spouse falls under it, making it illegal as consent was not given, and even if given in advance, is irrelevent.
  • jmiami

    Posts: 15

    May 29, 2011 5:42 PM GMT
    What crazy, backwater state is this?
  • stratavos

    Posts: 1831

    May 29, 2011 5:58 PM GMT
    So loneranger, this only applies in cases that involve women? There is a clear wording of "she" here. (this is in Canada)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    LoneRanger09 saidits ok, touching your sleeping spouse is now rape in Canada. Or kissing them, or caressing them...Thanks Supreme Court.


    Not quite. Rape (of a male or female) requires penetration with the penis. Touching, kissing or caressing a sleeping person would not amount to rape, but might be a sexual assault.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 6:09 PM GMT
    i have no issue with this whatsoever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 6:25 PM GMT
    I am guessing they violated some law regarding the dignity of a national memorial. Otherwise, what is to stop someone toasting marshmallows in JFK's eternal flame or scuba diving in the Pearl Harbour memorial? Some people have no decorum.
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    May 29, 2011 6:27 PM GMT

    Protesters arrested for dancing at Jefferson Memorial

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307284
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 6:29 PM GMT
    Mil8 said
    LoneRanger09 saidits ok, touching your sleeping spouse is now rape in Canada. Or kissing them, or caressing them...Thanks Supreme Court.


    Not quite. Rape (of a male of female) requires penetration with the penis. Touching, kissing or caressing a sleeping person would not amount to rape, but might be a sexual assault.


    thanks for correcting me. in the dissenting opinion the judges say spouse, which since gay marriage is legal here, would mean male-male, male-female, female-female partners. The judge says male-female here because it is that case, however under the law men and woman are equal, they cannot say something is illegal for a woman but not for a man under our charter of rights. The feminist group that badgered for the law is of course promoting it for woman, but there are also predatory woman, and this would apply in that case as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:05 PM GMT
    Thomas Jefferson would be absolutely disgusted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:26 PM GMT
    obviously there was something that led up to that. That wasn't a "random" display that instantly led to getting arrest.

    That was their goal and they got what they wanted. Don't be so quick to judge the actions of the park police.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    May 29, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    Step 1: DC Cops behave like jackasses, arresting people for no good reason.
    Step 2: The victims of unlawful arrest sue the government for tens of thousands of dollars, and win.
    Step 3: YOU, the taxpayer, have to pay for it. (Jackass cops don't pay one dime.)
    Step 4: Jackass cops still on the job for some reason.

    This happens all the time in DC. Really sad to see money poured down the drain on a regular basis. icon_confused.gif
    I know a guy who was unlawfully arrested and walked away with $20,000. He bought an SUV.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 9:39 PM GMT
    This seems like a rather poor way of handling the situation. Even if they were violating rules of the space, starting to mass arrest people is just foolish. Especially if they were doing it just to get a rise out of people. A better stance is to shake your head at it and move on.

    Locking down the entire memorial over such stupidity is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a while, and just validates and encourages people to rise up and make more of a fuss, which is exactly what began to happen.

    I'm sure the laws are in place to remain a level of respect for the memorial, and the reaction of the law enforcement in this instance seems to be a larger violation of the nature of that law. I'm thinking that the law makers weren't expecting cops to body slam some guy because he was slightly waving his arms.
  • siannoguy

    Posts: 14

    May 29, 2011 9:42 PM GMT
    I thought the one guy with glasses who was dancing was HOT!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 10:00 PM GMT
    Matty_WIP saidThis seems like a rather poor way of handling the situation. Even if they were violating rules of the space, starting to mass arrest people is just foolish. Especially if they were doing it just to get a rise out of people. A better stance is to shake your head at it and move on.

    Locking down the entire memorial over such stupidity is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a while, and just validates and encourages people to rise up and make more of a fuss, which is exactly what began to happen.

    I'm sure the laws are in place to remain a level of respect for the memorial, and the reaction of the law enforcement in this instance seems to be a larger violation of the nature of that law. I'm thinking that the law makers weren't expecting cops to body slam some guy because he was slightly waving his arms.


    So, you ignore them and tomorrow the "God Hates Fags" brigade turn up at the Jefferson Memorial and argue that you should not be arresting them, because you allowed the dancers to carry on with their protest.

    If you are lawfully arrested (which it seems these people were) and you resist arrest, then a degree of force will be used on you until you comply. It looked to me like the police used reasonable force in order to effect the arrests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 10:09 PM GMT
    Mil8 said
    Matty_WIP saidThis seems like a rather poor way of handling the situation. Even if they were violating rules of the space, starting to mass arrest people is just foolish. Especially if they were doing it just to get a rise out of people. A better stance is to shake your head at it and move on.

    Locking down the entire memorial over such stupidity is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a while, and just validates and encourages people to rise up and make more of a fuss, which is exactly what began to happen.

    I'm sure the laws are in place to remain a level of respect for the memorial, and the reaction of the law enforcement in this instance seems to be a larger violation of the nature of that law. I'm thinking that the law makers weren't expecting cops to body slam some guy because he was slightly waving his arms.


    So, you ignore them and tomorrow the "God Hates Fags" brigade turn up at the Jefferson Memorial and argue that you should not be arresting them, because you allowed the dancers to carry on with their protest.

    If you are lawfully arrested (which it seems these people were) and you resist arrest, then a degree of force will be used on you until you comply. It looked to me like the police used reasonable force in order to effect the arrests.


    what he said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 10:14 PM GMT
    These "demonstrators" were from Code Pink. They are known for being public agitators.

    I think in this case the DC cops were exercising restraint. A lot of other police personnel would not have hesitated to enforce compliance by deploying TASERs.

    Freedom of expression is one thing, and being a public nuisance and disruption the peace is quite another; the kissing/PDA in and of itself is hardly offensive, but there are public standards of decency and decorum - and in this case, they are codified into the law.

    Nothing a few hours in the cooler won't fix.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2011 10:58 PM GMT
    I think the uniforms said Park Police, not DC police. Doesn't surprise me, I remember about 12 years ago a bunch of us went by the Washington memorial to watch a free lunchtime concert. When the crowd got bigger than expected, Park Police freaked, helicopters, horses shepherding people, stupid. All of suits wandered off back to work, no concert.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 30, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    This is nothing new for Adam Kokesh. As others have said, this was staged to get the attention of the Park Police.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kokesh

    The title of that video is misleading. You can dance in public in DC. You can also kiss in public too, even at the memorial. But that doesn't mean you are able to turn the memorial into the site of a lovefest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 5:58 AM GMT
    Eh,

    They were protesting and the purpose was to be arrested. Please don't portray the Police as the bad guys here.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 30, 2011 6:06 AM GMT
    SDGMAN saidEh,

    They were protesting and the purpose was to be arrested. Please don't portray the Police as the bad guys here.


    Me?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 8:15 AM GMT
    SDGMAN saidEh,

    They were protesting and the purpose was to be arrested. Please don't portray the Police as the bad guys here.


    FUCK the cops. They are the bad guys here.
  • janu88

    Posts: 346

    May 30, 2011 8:27 AM GMT
    youve got yourself one fucked up police system there.
    Everybody knows that along time ago.
    if you really have laws against dancing around a memorial or kissing, thats just idiotic. icon_razz.gif and should be provoked to get attention how unrational laws is being made icon_rolleyes.gif