|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"Anyone else think this is ridiculous?"
On 2/9/2012 at 6:45:50 PM, Grizzle started the thread:
LOS ANGELES (CBS) — When you head down to the beach for a little fun this summer, county officials want you to leave the pigskin at home.
The Board of Supervisors this week agreed to raise fines for anyone who throws a football or a Frisbee on any beach in Los Angeles County.
In passing the 37-page ordinance on Tuesday, officials sought to outline responsibilities for law enforcement and other public agencies while also providing clarification on beach-goer activities that could potentially disrupt or even injure the public.
According to Lucy Kim, from the LA County Department of Beaches and Harbors, a first-time offender will have to pay a $100 fine. For a second offense, beach-goers will face a $200 fine. Three or more infractions within one year will result in a $500 fine, Kim said.
The updated rules now prohibit “any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll” any object other than a beach ball or volleyball “upon or over any beach” between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Exceptions allow for ball-throwing in predesignated areas, when a person obtains a permit, or playing water polo “in or over the Pacific Ocean”.
However, during the winter off-season, the new rules will be relaxed.
Officials warned that any activities that could potentially harm “any person or property on or near the beach” should not be allowed during the peak summer season.
Your kids could also end up costing you big bucks: the ordinance also prohibits digging any hole deeper than 18 inches into the sand except where permission is granted for film and TV production services only.
-----------------------------------------
I understand they say it's for safety, but it just boggles my mind. How many people have actually been irreparably injured by wayward frisbees?
**Also, with all the shit that is going downhill in California right now, (budget cuts, layoffs, immigration problems, over crowded jails, unemployment, etc etc) this type of issue should be the last thing on their minds. I know most major state decisions are made in Sacramento, but Los Angeles is the asshole of California. LA has far more pressing matters to attend to besides worrying about someone throwing a fucking ball on the beach.
Msg #1: On 2/9/2012 at 7:00:12 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying:
Good thing that, when I go to the beach, I go to the east coast.
Seriously, though, this is fucking ridiculous. Any kind of restrictions of this sort are, in my opinion, not right, but if they are determined to do something like this, they should make it so you can only throw soft objects, like nerf balls, beach balls, etc. and not baseballs or hard footballs. As for not being able to dig a hole....screw that. There are alot more safety hazards they could be worrying about - such as people fishing close to swimming areas or leaving glass on the beach - than people simply throwing a ball or frisbee around or digging in the sand.
Msg #2: On 2/9/2012 at 7:25:13 PM, Varan101 replied, saying:
Excuse me sir, that hole you just dug looks about 20 inches deep. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fine you.
Msg #3: On 2/9/2012 at 9:39:16 PM, Spino144 replied, saying:
I can no longer call the US the land of the free, when our rights and freedoms are shrinking everyday. The ones who praise this new law should be ashamed of themselves.
Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 2/9/2012 at 10:15:05 PM, Phily replied to Msg #3, saying:
I certainly can. After living in and visiting countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and India, this country is far-and-above the most free. I can worship freely, speak freely (in the bounds of law) and swim in the ocean of opportunities that this country has to offer. Do not underestimate or denounce the blessed and privileged life you have here. Many will gladly take your place.
Replies: 5
Msg #5: On 2/9/2012 at 10:29:44 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #4, saying:
As a longtime member of this site, you should know better than to take anything Spino says seriously.
Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 2/9/2012 at 10:42:11 PM, Spino144 replied to Msg #5, saying:
I am being serious in this context. It is now against to law to bring footballs and Frisbees to a beach in LA County? I'm not saying that other countries are any better, I am saying that two wrongs don't make it right.
Msg #7: On 2/9/2012 at 10:59:57 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
The California coastline is public property. Would they try to pull this on people playing frisbee in a park?
Msg #8: On 2/10/2012 at 12:33:16 AM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
I'm not like a constitutionalist or anything, but I have a fundamental problem with the idea of open land in this country being owned by anyone, or having lots of rules. I can think of several occasions I've been told NOT to walk somewhere just cause someone somewhere owns the property. You know what? Fuck you. It's the fucking forest.
Replies: 9
Msg #9: On 2/10/2012 at 8:11:07 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #8, saying:
So I take it you wouldn't mind if I walked through your apartment?
Replies: 12
Msg #10: On 2/10/2012 at 8:44:19 AM, Compy01 replied, saying:
The USA is free country, but it lags behind Western Europe.
Msg #11: On 2/10/2012 at 12:25:38 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Maybe landowners don't want people in their forested land so they can preserve the natural environment and prevent poaching, camping, and outdoor squatting.
Msg #12: On 2/10/2012 at 1:21:17 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied to Msg #9, saying:
NOT the same thing. Federally owned land is one thing because they let you walk through, like the National Forest, but privately owned land...that's horseshit. It's usually restricted and you usually can't even tell the difference unless you see a sign.
The very notion that I can't just walk across the country(with the exception of avoiding people's backyards and such) without having to avoid MANY areas that look just like nature except it's owned by someone is ridiculous.
Also...Ostro those preventative measures are usually for federally owned land, and that's ok I guess because they don't want people poaching or burning the forest down. But the idea of SO MANY places that are just NATURE being off-limits completely to people is stupid.
Replies: 13
Msg #13: On 2/10/2012 at 1:42:51 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #12, saying:
Is the only reason you think it's horseshit that it's undeveloped land that's indistinguishable from public forests? They're are hundreds of reasons why it wouldn't be ridiculous (you wouldn't want to wander into someone's hunting land without orange on), but it doesn't matter because your ultimate complaint is that you're inconvenienced by not being able to go onto someone else's private property.
It's not like I don't know what you're talking about. I'm from the sticks, so I was surrounded by posted woodlands my whole life. If you really just want to go for a walk, ask the owner permission. It's selfish to just say it's bullshit that people can actually own a forest.
Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 2/10/2012 at 3:29:59 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied to Msg #13, saying:
It IS bullshit. It's a FUCKING FOREST. Why do you own a forest?!!!
Replies: 15, 16
Msg #15: On 2/10/2012 at 4:05:41 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #14, saying:
Are you being serious? How do you own a field, or a pond, or a patch of desert, or any other kind of natural feature? You better be prepared to deny the entire concept of land ownership if you think forests are somehow special.
Msg #16: On 2/10/2012 at 7:02:22 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #14, saying:
LOL, my family owns land in the forested mountains (not too far from Yosemite), and I'd be pissed if some entitled punk wandered onto their land, broke his leg, and sued them.
Will, you're a smart dude and you usually have reasonable opinions, but you're wrong on this one. Your argument is hypocritical and stupid.
Msg #17: On 2/10/2012 at 8:44:47 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Will, the only difference between a backyard and a forest is one is just less developed...
Anyway, Spino was being serious, and he's right. There's no need to go off the deep end and get all offended and say "Well we're freer than X country". That kind of argument is flawed. As long as we're not the worst we can't change things for the better?
Replies: 18
Msg #18: On 2/10/2012 at 9:14:04 PM, Phily replied to Msg #17, saying:
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that I don't take Canadians seriously.
Replies: 19
Msg #19: On 2/10/2012 at 9:24:11 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #18, saying:
u mad at our greater freedoms?
Replies: 20
Msg #20: On 2/10/2012 at 9:52:44 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #19, saying:
Yeah, enjoy your hate speech laws and the freedom they encourage.TROLOLOLOLO
Replies: 49
Msg #21: On 2/11/2012 at 12:21:54 AM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
No I understand it is a bit ridiculous. My problem isn't with the concept of owning land, I just don't see the point in owning THAT much land. Seems like just an excuse to be an asshole to people who like going on nature hikes.
Replies: 22, 23, 25
Msg #22: On 2/11/2012 at 1:31:04 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #21, saying:
Rather someone own it and keep it preserved, than someone own it and tear it down for a strip mall or an Arbys. Just my opinion though.
Replies: 24
Msg #23: On 2/11/2012 at 7:18:08 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #21, saying:
I hope my owning of land doesn't inconvenience you someday. :-(
Msg #24: On 2/12/2012 at 12:46:31 AM, Phily replied to Msg #22, saying:
True that.
Msg #25: On 2/12/2012 at 4:01:44 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #21, saying:
I wasn't going to respond to this but as I've read it a few more times over the last few days, I can't help myself. This sentiment is the exact casual embodiment of the Occupy nonsense. You don't have any right to set a bar at any level in what is an acceptable amount of anything for someone to own. You also don't have any inherent right to a nature walk. The only asshole here is someone who assumes that they can dictate what someone should do with their own things. I know you don't mean to be that way but your default gut reaction is disturbing.
Replies: 26, 27
Msg #26: On 2/12/2012 at 5:08:16 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #25, saying:
Agreed.
Msg #27: On 2/12/2012 at 5:09:57 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #25, saying:
Exactly.
Msg #28: On 2/12/2012 at 7:52:57 PM, fordprefect replied, saying:
there are literally billions of places in America to go hiking anyway.
Msg #29: On 2/12/2012 at 9:06:36 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I think Will edited his last post to say "Why do you own a forest?" instead of "How do you own a forest?"
Replies: 30
Msg #30: On 2/12/2012 at 9:50:01 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #29, saying:
It wasn't his last reply but I think he did edit it as well.
Msg #31: On 2/13/2012 at 12:30:24 AM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
LOL now you guys are just making things up. I didn't edit my post at all.
Replies: 32, 51
Msg #32: On 2/13/2012 at 10:37:47 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #31, saying:
Don't change the subject, you communist dog.
Msg #33: On 2/13/2012 at 11:54:20 AM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I'm not trying to argue about it, but I specifically remember reading "How do you own a forest?" out loud and laughing.
Replies: 34
Msg #34: On 2/13/2012 at 1:54:07 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied to Msg #33, saying:
That might've been what you remember. But it's not what I wrote.
Replies: 35
Msg #35: On 2/13/2012 at 5:03:23 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #34, saying:
Pretty sure I saw you originally typed "how", too. Not that it really makes any difference....you are still wrong either way.
Msg #36: On 2/13/2012 at 8:40:27 PM, fordprefect replied, saying:
Tbh there is an intuitive disconnect between owning a forest and owning a garden and there's a lengthy philosophical tradition surrounding the freedom to roam and easement rights (especially in the UK). Portraying it as 'liberals aggressively asserting their right to trespass' is a bit simplistic imo
Replies: 37
Msg #37: On 2/13/2012 at 9:03:40 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #36, saying:
Private property rights are a cornerstone of American government and that's the country we're discussing.
Replies: 38
Msg #38: On 2/13/2012 at 9:21:15 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #37, saying:
no doubt no doubt, but America presumably also has laws regarding easements and eminent domain. And in any case you are well aware that the jurisprudence traditions in both our countries are mostly shared.
Replies: 39
Msg #39: On 2/13/2012 at 9:25:34 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #38, saying:
wait
you moved away from mumbai ?
Replies: 40
Msg #40: On 2/13/2012 at 9:48:19 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #39, saying:
I know, I moved to USA so that I can trample over all the fields I want...
DAT GRASS
Replies: 41
Msg #41: On 2/13/2012 at 10:53:50 PM, Phily replied to Msg #40, saying:
I moved to the USA so that I could get the best education and job opportunity possible..
DAT CLASS
Msg #42: On 2/14/2012 at 12:22:55 PM, raptor2000 replied, saying:
I moved to the USA so I could get some chicks.
DAT ASS
Msg #43: On 2/14/2012 at 5:17:35 PM, Stealth Raptor2 replied, saying:
I moved to the USA so I could wrangle up the girl of my dreams.
DAT LASS
Replies: 44
Msg #44: On 2/14/2012 at 5:24:41 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #43, saying:
That's all well and good, til she lips off to you and you have to give her the backhand.
DAT SASS
Replies: 45
Msg #45: On 2/14/2012 at 5:31:08 PM, Stealth Raptor2 replied to Msg #44, saying:
Occasionally that happens. But then you go to church and all is forgiven.
DAT MASS
Replies: 46
Msg #46: On 2/14/2012 at 5:55:13 PM, Phily replied to Msg #45, saying:
After church, I go to New Jersey to get cheaper fuel for my car.
DAT GASS
Msg #47: On 2/14/2012 at 5:58:38 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying:
After fueling up my car, I go on a fishing trip...?
DAT BASS
talkin bout dat bass when the BEAT DROPS
Replies: 48
Msg #48: On 2/15/2012 at 10:26:32 AM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #47, saying:
Hey, that's the part right before where the raptors bust through the windows after Grant, Ellie, and the kids.
DAT GLASS
Msg #49: On 2/15/2012 at 9:26:32 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #20, saying:
"In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)."
Basically, if you're against Canada's hate speech laws, you're a fucking blind dumbass going "YEAH GO 'MERICA PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR FREEDOMS" without even thinking about whether the law is outdated or phrased incorrectly.
You have to restrict certain things to promote overall freedom. In this instance, making minorities feel safer and less threatened if people aren't allowed to say "KILL ALL THE JEWS" or other such group, which is basically the only thing you're not allowed to say here. An analogy to this is restricting people from running red lights or drinking and driving in order to protect the greater freedom to life and health.
Replies: 50, 54
Msg #50: On 2/15/2012 at 10:00:17 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #49, saying:
Don't change the subject, or we's gonna get da cops on yo ass.
DAT BRASS
Msg #51: On 2/15/2012 at 10:03:13 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #31, saying:
There was a pic of three xenomorphs sitting down eating potato chips at a picnic table on Prometheus set, but WOULDN'T YOU BELIEVE IT. FOX got rid of ALL TRACES!
Msg #52: On 2/16/2012 at 10:27:56 AM, Ostromite replied, saying:
You have to restrict certain things to promote overall freedom. In this instance, making minorities feel safer and less threatened if people aren't allowed to say "KILL ALL THE JEWS" or other such group, which is basically the only thing you're not allowed to say here. An analogy to this is restricting people from running red lights or drinking and driving in order to protect the greater freedom to life and health.
It's not about freedoms, though; it's about rights. Nobody has an automatic right to drive a car. You have to get a license to operate on public, state-maintained roads, and that privilege can be rescinded if you display reckless behavior.
Restricting free speech in any capacity is a violation of the right to free speech, regardless of the impulse behind the speech and how horrible it is. There's a difference between laws prohibiting hate speech and actual personal harassment of individuals. To use your anti-Semitism example, hate speech is simply the mere act of saying that all Jews should be killed, while harassment would be shouting it to a Jewish family every day from across the street.
I don't know how this law is actually enforced in Canada, so I don't know to what extent it actually restricts free speech and how much of it is just sort of on paper. However, I think it's really dismissive and unfair to say that anyone who opposes the laws is a "blind dumbass." Part of QC's objection to them is probably due to the fact that people occasionally propose similar laws in the U.S. and their constitutionality is debatable.
Replies: 53
Msg #53: On 2/16/2012 at 2:38:41 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #52, saying:
Absolute free speech is not upheld anywhere - obscenity, defamation, harassment and assault are not tolerated in the US and if one justifies that by the public interest then I don't see the difference in also restricting hate speech for the same reason.
That is to say, the extent to which free speech is restricted is an arbitrary one and I suspect there are legitimate arguments on where the distinction is between hate speech and other restrictions such as those above. But no one can credibly argue that free speech is an a priori fundamental right that should have no legal interference.
Msg #54: On 2/16/2012 at 7:20:31 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #49, saying:
Ostro already did a good job responding to this but I'll add a quick comment.
"In this instance, making minorities feel safer and less threatened if people aren't allowed to say "KILL ALL THE JEWS" or other such group, which is basically the only thing you're not allowed to say here. An analogy to this is restricting people from running red lights or drinking and driving in order to protect the greater freedom to life and health."
If some fucking blind dumbass wants to say KILL ALL THE JEWS then he should have the right to say it and have plenty of more people come back and say shut up. That's what 'merica rules. The answer to poor speech is more free speech. I really must've tweaked a nerve for you to go so deeply ad hominem so quickly.
Also, that is in no way an analogy. You can't quantify damage from hate speech whereas you can easily quantify physical damage from disregard for traffic laws. I'm not interested in arguing with you on it but we care for our rights dearly in 'merica.
Q:"What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?"
CHRC investigator Dean Steacy: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept."
If you get so upset after an tongue in cheek barb that you immediate dismiss anyone who can have a different opinion than you, it's clear your opinion isn't worth consideration to begin with.
Edit: Also, questions on what subjects are involved in "public debate", "religion" and what is considered "truth" or not are too vague to absolutely arbitrary but really you don't even need to get into the details to debate why criminalizing speech like this is wrong.
Msg #55: On 2/23/2012 at 4:44:10 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
I disagree entirely for the reasons ford already laid out. Truly free speech does not actually exist. And it's okay to restrict it sometimes. You can go ahead and say, well it's okay everyone knows those people would be shouted down and told to shut up. But what if you have no one supporting you? What if there's a mob mentality that grows out of it? That's why the law exists.
Also, this would never happen in Canada, so lol:
http://www.abc27.com/story/16986440/midstate-judge-rules-against-attack-on-atheist-in-costume
Replies: 56
Msg #56: On 2/23/2012 at 5:27:27 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #55, saying:
None of the reasons ford laid out can be applied to Canada's censorship.
Msg #57: On 2/23/2012 at 5:28:05 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
To just address the three specific things Ford mentioned:
Obscenity laws in the U.S. are widely debated and usually despised for the same reasons the Canadian hate speech laws are. They are also rarely, if ever, enforced.
Harassment is not "speech" in the discursive sense, i.e. public or private utterances used to express ideas. The boundary between using words as expression and using them to specifically target an individual to make them feel unsafe is blurry, and that's why it is left to judges to determine how "weaponized" the given speech was on a case by case basis. Not many people robotically adhere to a purely technical definition of speech as the production of words.
Defamation, libel, and slander are not illegal, per se, but are only punishable through civil courts. It is not criminal to defame someone, but they can seek legal redress against unfounded claims that unfairly destroy their livelihood.
EDIT: I guess my point is that none of these examples make it illegal to express any particular idea. Obscenity applies only to specific words, harassment hinges on how the speech is being used to infringe upon the rights of others, and libel/slander are not technically illegal. Hate speech laws actually criminalize the very act of expressing hateful ideas.
Replies: 59
Msg #58: On 2/24/2012 at 8:10:12 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
Wow, the pathetic dodge Raptor Vinny just threw out there should probably go in the Dansjp3page hall of fame. "so lol" Hah.
Msg #59: On 3/9/2012 at 10:07:04 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #57, saying:
'Harassment is not "speech" in the discursive sense, i.e. public or private utterances used to express ideas. The boundary between using words as expression and using them to specifically target an individual to make them feel unsafe is blurry, and that's why it is left to judges to determine how "weaponized" the given speech was on a case by case basis. Not many people robotically adhere to a purely technical definition of speech as the production of words.'
The point is that not all speech will be protected in America. As soon as you let a judge decide whether one particular 'idea' is permissible to say and another is not then absolute free speech is restricted. And in the UK at least, 'hate speech' laws do not restrict the expression of ideas as I'm sure you understand it. Nobody is preventing the Westboro Baptist Church coming up with and sharing a decent defence of their position but it is considered unreasonable to be allowed to stand in a public space and shout things likely to cause distress to a particular group of people.
'Defamation, libel, and slander are not illegal, per se, but are only punishable through civil courts.'
I never said it was illegal, but they are unlawful - If I continue to ignore the rulings of a civil court I will be incarcerated.
'Hate speech laws actually criminalize the very act of expressing hateful ideas.'
That's not true, I don't know how it works in the US (or Canada) but in the UK ideas themselves are not criminalised. It is illegal to display a sign saying 'Niggers are scum' or burn a cross opposite a black person's house fully intending to cause other people distress, or to threaten them. I see no qualitative distinction between that kind of speech and assault or harassment.
Msg #60: On 1/11/2021 at 12:48:58 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Hopefully you dipshits can now see why ford and I were saying hate speech laws are a necessary evil to protect against hateful demagogues.
|
