Jump to content

provoman

Members
  • Content Count

    1,685
  • Joined

Everything posted by provoman

  1. In this case, it seems the "alarm" or "affront" is from the biological mother - the salt lake tribune article put "alarmed" in quotation marks in reference to the biological mother. I do not know how the law works in that regard - can person not present claim "affront" or "alarm" OR can a parent not present suffer "affront" or "alarm" on behalf of the children who witnessed but did not suffer "affront" or "alarm".
  2. After re-reading the sltrib article it was the biological mother that reported. So pogi was correct that the biological mother reported. How she found out is unknown to us spectators. If the children suffered "alarm" or "affront" is also unknown to us.
  3. Did she know it was against the law? I do not think many Utah mothers know it can be illegal for their children to see their exposed breast.
  4. 76-9-702 a person is guilty of lewdness...if the person...performs any of the following IN A PUBLIC PLACE ....exposes the female breast below the top of the areola. Exposure of the female breast below the top of the areola in a public place is lewdness. The "affront or alarm" is an OR statement to "in a public place"; so "in a public place or under circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm"
  5. you and others keep pointing out she is not the biological mother. The law makes no distinction between breast of biological mother and any other female breast.
  6. Utah 76-9-702 A person is guilty of lewdness if the person....exposes..., the female breast below the top of the areola.
  7. Utah law the female areola or female nipple ARE inherently lewd. And if laws represent cultural norms, then would it be accurate to say Utah cultural norms/sensibilities ARE that the female areola or female are inherently obscene? The only context that Utah State Law deems the female areola or female not lewd is when the female is breastfeeding.
  8. Why are we diminishing the validity of a parent simply because the parent does not have a genetic connection to the child.
  9. To the bolded. Please stop speculating. Based on the article Calm posted, it seems evident that the children NEVER told the birth mother. The topless incident was discover when Child protective services or the police where conducting interviews about a unrelated matter.
  10. Do have a statement from the kids wherein they say they felt violated? And on what basis are you claiming the kids filed charges? I read about this case a couple of months ago and I do not recall the kids saying they felt violated.
  11. Why should the law be permitted to protect "norms" or perhaps in other words traditions? If an exposed female breast is not obscene while breast feeding, why is a non-breastfeeding female breast obscene.
  12. The topless in front of kids incident was reported a month or more after it happened. The incident came known to police/CPS because it was mentioned while police/CPS were investigating a unrelated issue. Pure speculation but it appears that one or both of the biological parents have weaponized child protective service and/or the police to continue post divorce attacks on another.
  13. Here is the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the Fort Collins topless ban. The ruling addresses various arguments in favor of female only topless ban which the Court did not agree with and agreed that a female only topless ban is presumptively unConstitutional.
  14. Yes Utah law indicate the female breast is "lewd" (and so it would not be inaccurate to say "inherently obscene) and it is a crime for a woman to be topless except when breast feeding; while Utah law says nothing about the male areola, nipple, or breast. If reddit comments can be accepted, then people in places (in the US) where female toplessness is not prohibited, stated that there was no rise in seeing topless females.
  15. I would consider "poor execution" being that the AI so readily agreed with trolls
  16. These AI are usually poorly executed in my opinion. An AI was released sometime ago and it support committing crimes against humanity.
  17. Unless there is some agreed upon "only the definition from ______ dictionary", then any argument against rockpond seems lacking for instance de·face (dĭ-fās′) tr.v. de·faced, de·fac·ing, de·fac·es 1. To mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure. 2. To impair the usefulness, value, or influence of. 3. Obsolete To obliterate; destroy. "spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure" Seems to me both happened, and as such use the word defaced is acceptable.
  18. It is also the kind of Press (allegation of hate/discrimination/bias) that has been proven to be self inflicted over and over again in the past few years.
  19. And you did not elaborate on "we need to not have appointed interviews with youth one on one,...". I am not pressing the issue and I appreciate your input when you choose to respond.
  20. And I do not think most people equate adult on adult sexual behavior to mean the same adult(s) will commit abuse of minors.
  21. Could you elaborate? What is the connection of a peeping tom & child abuse?
  22. I like what you posted and would add. That anger is associated with God, then can it be said anger is a Godly trait? Anger, like any other human traits that is also attributed to Deity, is something that one must learn to use/manifest in a Godly way. Anger is no more a sin than sex, both have righteous manifestations and unrighteous.
×
×
  • Create New...