vision2020
RE: curious about the vote
- To: dmcourtn@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
- Subject: RE: curious about the vote
- From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 23:33:38 +0000
- Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <tFalCB.A.EZL.oATf9@whale2.fsr.net>
- Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
Idaho has a lot of laws that should be revoked. It is also illegal to have
sex any other way than missionary style, and that is only if you are
married. Unmarried couples are breaking the law when they have sex.
The fact that this sweeps onto private property is not a bogus statement.
The nudity law now says:
"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."
It is pretty clear that this includes private property to me.
Garrett Clevenger
>From: "Dale Courtney" <dmcourtn@moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: curious about the vote
>Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:34:39 -0700
>
> > Keep in mind that this ordinance sweeps onto private
> > property. A woman who
> > exposes her breasts in public view, including her home if it
> > is open to
> > public view, faces a $500 fine or 6 months in jail.
>
>This is a bogus statement.
>
>There are a *lot* of things that "sweep onto private property". A couple
>are not allowed to copulate on their front yard in plain view just
>because it is private property.
>
>Dale Courtney,
>Moscow, Idaho
>Free to be me, free to be you (as long as you agree with Tom...)
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Back to TOC