Californian Judge: Indecent Exposure by Woman not Indecent. Rather Cool Actually...
 

If he ran inside and told his folks, she must be ugly.

Indeed.

Depends. Who is your person?

Originally posted by BlackCat


If you are a blonde swedish godess, NO!. I you are a typical swedish male YES !!!!
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/cool.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/liberal.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/banned-p.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif Poor Siro has me on ignore, so won't even know that I've jacked his thread

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif Poor Siro has me on ignore, so won't even know that I've jacked his thread more like jacked off http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/tongue.gif

Stop posting nekkid pictures of yourself. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/doitnow.gif

Are Americans so repressed that they cannot use the word penis in their laws

A decade or two ago, Floriday tried to pass an anti-obscenity ordinance that was so specific it would have violated itself if it'd passed. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

[Zkribbler thumbs through the statute looking for its definition of "lap." It appears to be a definition of which heretofore he has been unaware.] http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/confused.gif

He should have asked to borrow his parents camera.

The more I think about the judge's decision, the more stupid I realize it is.

Not only does it ignore the law and is bound to be reversed on appeal, but it is also politically stupid.

First, it's a sexist ruling. So, it'll ge the women's libbers up in arms.
Second, this decision permits a woman's whose been sexually harassing children (okay, a child) to continue. This will get the puritans and family values folks up in arms.
Third, it promotes public indecency.
Four, this lady is probably a few french fries short of a happy meal, but not only will this decision not get her the mental healthcare she needs, but places the government's stamp of approval on her actions.

And somehow, the judge has forgotten that every so often, he comes up for re-election. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/banghead.gif This decision will go over real well with the voters.

IF his ruling had any relation to the law...but it didn't.

The judge ruled the way he did because (a) he's an idiot who doesn't know the law and/or (b) because regardless of the law, he wants to encourage public nudity.

Maybe she was really ugly?

I have seen some women under 30 who I wouldn't want to see naked (99.999% of the time)

JM