The following correspondence originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “In Complete Abuse of Law, North Carolina Teen Charged With Sexually Exploiting Himself for Possessing Nude Photos of Self on His Phone“…
Teen victim of legal injustice, Cormega Copening
Rayn: Brilliant… *facepalm*
Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha
Jonas A.: 😮 😮
I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…
Teen victim of legal injustice, Cormega Copening
Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha
(Robby Soave) A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself—which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?
Unfortunately, that’s the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend—with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.
My Commentary: Brilliant… *facepalm*
I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…
Clinton’s 700-Mile Border Fence Is Just 300 Miles Shorter Than Trump’s:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/01/clintons-700-mile-border-fence-is-just-3
(Nick Gillespie) Who (besides libertarians) would have figured that the 2016 election is really an extended case study in what Freud termed “the narcissism of small differences,” or “the phenenomen is the phenomenon that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and that are related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and are ridiculing each other because of sensitiveness to these details of differentiation”?
My Commentary: Same Shit. Different Pile.
The following correspondence originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Short-Sighted, Arrogant Control-Freak State Eagerly-Enforces Arbitrary Aesthetic Opinion Over Freedom and Self-Sustainability“…
Rayn: Shallow, short-sighted, arrogant control-freaks eagerly-enforce arbitrary aesthetic opinion over freedom and self-sustainability…
Judge Rules Government Can Ban Vegetable Gardens Because They’re ‘Ugly’:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/09/judge-rules-government-can-ban-vegetable-gardens-theyre-ugly/
Monica G.: Must be strictly a meat eater 😡
Unay U.: They want you to continue to buy your produce at supermarkets.
Unay U.: Florida is notorious for stopping people from self reliance.
I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…
Judge Rules Government Can Ban Vegetable Gardens Because They’re ‘Ugly’:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/09/judge-rules-government-can-ban-vegetable-gardens-theyre-ugly/
(Ben Richards) Last week, a Miami-Dade judge became the focus of much-deserved anger when she ruled on an ordinance banning front yard vegetable gardens. The village of Miami Shores, according to the ruling, has every right to take legal action against residents who dare to grow food in their own yards because they are “ugly.”
The ruling was a whopping ten pages long as it was filled with legal analysis and definitions of what constitutes a vegetable. Even though she ruled in favor of the ban, Judge Monica Gordo acknowledged that she wasn’t quite sure how a vegetable garden can ruin the aesthetics of one’s property.
However, she stated that the democratically elected government has every right to dictate what constitutes an ugly front yard, and gardens are apparently a contributing factor.
My Commentary: Shallow, short-sighted, arrogant control-freaks eagerly-enforce arbitrary aesthetic opinion over freedom and self-sustainability…
