What’s the Right Penalty for Having Sex on the Beach in Florida?
The correct answer is being mocked on Fark.com. But Sunshine State officials believe that up to 15 years in prison and a spot on the sex-offender registry is appropriate.
What is the appropriate penalty for having sex on the beach? This is a story about how that offense, like so many others, allows a penalty far longer than is just.
Were I a cop who stumbled on a couple hooking up beneath a blanket at night I’d look away. Confronted with people going at it during daylight hours in view of passersby, I’d think, “The abrasiveness of sand dissuades most people from doing this and the best outcome would be for Fark.com to mock their breach of community standards, but I suppose I’m obligated to make them stop and issue a ticket.”As a prosecutor, I’d seek a sentence of community service plus one weekend of house arrest with the Jimmy Buffett song “Who’s the Blond Stranger?” played on repeat over and over and over. A person never forgets that.
But it turns out that actual Florida lawmakers and prosecutors are wildly less forgiving of sex on the beach. “A jury Monday found a couple guilty of having sex on Bradenton Beach after only 15 minutes of deliberation,” The Miami Heraldreports. “The convictions carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.”
Read it all HERE. (remember when you go to Florida, no sex on the beach!)
What is the difference between an ‘attempted’ terrorist attack and an actual attack?
The White House has labeled the terrorist attack on the free speech event in Texas as an “attempted terrorist attack.”
The Hill reports:
The White House on Tuesday called a shooting outside a “Draw Muhammad” contest in Texas “an attempted terrorist attack” but said it was too early to say whether the incident is tied to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
I guess the bullet that hit the guard was just an attempted bullet.
Press secretary Josh Earnest said the shooting is still under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies, and it’s premature to say ISIS has reached U.S. shores.
Earnest said the Obama administration is “very vigilant about the efforts” of extremist groups to recruit Americans to carry out attacks in the U.S.
Not to worry.
And, I might add, this short excerpt from the Hill article highlights so much of what is wrong, wrong, dangerously wrong about the Obama administration’s policies on Islam, national security, and liberty. Here we had, once again, the administration (via its main mouthpiece, Josh Earnest) taking about the ever vague and ambiguous “extremist groups.” No member of this administration dare name the enemy: jihad.
Asked whether it was appropriate to draw depictions of the prophet Muhammad, which Muslims find offensive, Earnest said it’s not a judgment for the administration to make.
The answer should have been an unequivocal, resounding yes to free speech. Instead, Mr. Mouthpiece sidestepped and took the cowardly road.
Court’s Reversal Leaves Phones Open to Warrantless Tracking
A US CIRCUIT court has handed privacy advocates a surprising reversal on a landmark pro-privacy decision: Last year, the court ruled against the government in the case of Quartavious Davis, whose cell phone was tracked by cops as he went on a three-month robbery spree. Privacy advocates celebrated that result as a new anti-snooping legal precedent. But now prosecutors could use the same court’s opposite finding to instead justify warrantless snooping on your cellphone’s location.
In a decision published Tuesday, a panel of 11th circuit judges overturned the ruling the same circuit court made last year in US vs. Davis, which found that obtaining Davis’ past cellphone location without a warrant violated his fourth amendment right to privacy. The new ruling instead finds that because Davis’ phone location data wasn’t Davis’s property, but the property of his phone carrier, MetroPCS—a legal argument known as the “third party doctrine”—he had no expectation of that data’s privacy, and the cops tracking him didn’t in fact need a warrant.
“It’s a huge setback as compared to the decision it vacated,” says Susan Freiwald, a privacy-focused University of San Francisco Law School professor. “These decisions only come out every couple of years. And in that sense it’s very disappointing.”
Since 2012, when the Supreme Court ruled in US vs. Jones that police couldn’t place a tracking device on a suspect’s automobile without a warrant, the privacy community has been waiting for a similar ruling that would apply to phones. Snooping on a modern smartphone’s data and phone records, after all, is at least as invasive as any GPS tracking device on a car.
Continue reading HERE.