Opaque? Ordinance word choice is extreme!!

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Pam, et. al.

I looked up "opaque."  It means impenetrable to light, unlike translucent, 
which means allowing light to pass through but not in a manner that allows 
objects to be distinguished, which would have been a better word choice for 
the goals of this ordinance, or transparent, which means letting light 
through in a manner that allows clearly seeing objects.  So if my 
interpretation is correct, the ordinance would render many types of garments 
that are commonly worn illegal, because they allow some light to penetrate, 
and in fact make distinguishing what is underneath, at least in part, 
possible.

Ted, the menace to society



>From: Pam Palmer <ppalmer@moscow.com>
>To: Doug Farris <heirloom@moscow.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: No law for "neked" children
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:07:57 -0700
>
>Doug Farris-
>
>You may want to look more closely at the language in the ordinance, as it
>was printed in the Daily News.  It does not refer to pubescent, except when
>referring to female breasts (see below).  So far, I have not seen any 
>"cleft
>of the buttocks" and "genitals" exemptions for prepubescent people, so
>infants & toddlers seem to be fair game for committing misdemeanors
>according to the Council's new ordinance.  Or, as Bob Hoffman stated, 
>"would
>that make the parent liable?"  If, on the other hand, the paper has yet to
>print the full version of the ordinance, maybe you're correct about
>exemptions for infants.
>
>Pam Palmer
>
>Wording of new ordinance:
>
>Section B.  No person shall willfully expose to view or fail to cover
>completely and opaquely any portion of such person's anus, cleft of the
>buttocks, genitals, and the pubescent or postpubescent female breast on or
>in any public place or place open to public view.
>
>
>On 7/17/02 3:11 PM, "Doug Farris" <heirloom@moscow.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Bob Hoffmann....
> >
> > You said...
> >
> > (Note that our new ordinance does not even exempt infants from the law,
> > and there is no exemption from changing diapers in public--so would that
> > make the parent liable?)
> >
> > You need to look up the definition for Prepubescent.  They are the ones
> > who are exempt...
> >
> > lemeno Doug
> >




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx