NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
This judge in Portland let this kid go who was riding his bike naked. Portland has a law against public nudity but it allows exceptions when it's done as political speech. Jerome LaBarre was not riding as any part of an organized political parade like the "world naked ride"
. He was hanging with his buddies then took his clothes off and rode around the block naked. In court he said he did it as a protest against cars, the Iraq war etc. The judge believed him despite the prosecutor's protests that LaBarre was holding no signs or pamphlets. THE BIKE RIDING IS THE SIGN. THE BIKE RIDING IS THE PAMPHLET.
Kudos to the judge and kudos to LaBarre and his public defender who fought the charges despite the prosecutor's attempt for a plea deal.
The notion that riding a bike is in itself a political act is one of the sillier ideas that I've seen gain traction lately. Fortunately for my smugness, nothing about this case makes that assertion appear any less silly.
Even if you accept the sincerity and/or validity of the defendant's argument, it does not follow from that argument (thus it does not follow from the judge's endorsement of it) that bike riding IS a political act. All it means is that an act undertaken with the intent to protest is an act of protest, at least where there exists a documented local tradition of that act being done in a more organized fashion for the purpose of protest. After all, the guy's lawyer did not say "My client doesn't know why he was riding his bicycle naked; however, any activity carried out on a bicycle is automatically an act of protest and therefore is protected speech."
Hey, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all of those guys you see on group rides throwing their beer bottles onto poor people's front porches are a bunch of groovy activists. No doubt those fellows wobbling around on outsized fixed gear bikes with stolen wheels hanging from their handlebars are striking a blow for some great cause or another.
But officer, my consumption of that six-pack of Tecate was an expression of our society's insatiable thirst for foreign oil, and my resulting drunkenness is a statement about how this has made us all drunk on power. By throwing the cans on the ground, I was simply emphasizing the terrible wastefulness of the American lifestyle. Our national arrogance is positively shocking, and I believe that I have truly raised awareness among this audience of cycling enthusiasts here in the 7-11 parking lot. It offends me, sir, that you would try to limit my ability to make these statements here in this center of convenience and automobile culture.
Furthermore, by pocketing that tallboy of Steel Reserve and subsequently struggling with the clerk as he tried to stop me from leaving with it, I was re-enacting the violent theft of resources that is taking place every day in Iraq. Surely you can see how this bit of street theater is protected speech...
No, you say? Well my bicycle is right over there. I will accept your apologies now, but if you feel you need some time to properly express your shame and regret, I will expect a formal apology in writing at your earliest convenience.
You are all missing the point. It wasn't his bike riding, nor was it stealing, littering, or fighting with a clerk that the person just stoled beer from that is protected political free speech. It is being naked that is free speech. This person who had their 1st amendment rights question and then upheld by a court judge for their act of being naked. The person just used the vehicle of a bicycle to express an alternative mode of transportation, in regards to another form of transportation that causes harm, either by pollution, lose of life or injury or harm to people involved in procurement of the commodity that fuels the said vehicle that the person was protesting. I can understand everybody else having a unenlightened view of a person 1st Amendment constitutional right upheld, but PC?????
PC you and I rode in protest of the same thing this person was protesting. The person protesting choose to use their exposed body as a attention grabbing symbol to bring attention to that what they where protesting.
The judge's ruling should be celebrated as a validation to the constitutional right that we in this country are entitled too.
Sexy, you fucking donk, I didn't say that I didn't agree with the judge's finding. I didn't say that I disagree with it, either. I didn't state an opinion on it, because it doesn't matter.
My point, you big point-misser you, is that the defendant's legal argument was not that "riding IS political speech," as Marino would have you believe, but that this particular naked bike ride was an act of political protest expressing a specific set of grievances. The judge agreed and threw out the charges, affirming the notion that bike riding CAN be political protest under certain circumstances (i.e., an identifiable grievance, a recognizable connection between the policy being protested and the act protesting it, and a local history of that act being used as an expression of the same grievance).
Don't feel bad. You're not the only one who isn't reading things carefully. Did you notice (well, probably not) that Marino thought Jerome LaBarre was the kid who rode the bike? LaBarre is the judge. Michael Hammond is the bike rider.
Sexy, PC's point was more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. The take-home message from the ruling was that when one can reasonably infer that there's an intention of making a political statement by riding a bike, then the riding is protected as free speech. The ruling doesn't say that riding a bike IS political speech, as marino had claimed.
My point (which was about as nuanced as a tranny hooker, and half as classy) was that a lot of the behavior that takes place on group rides* is grounded in the same self-righteous wastefulness that many of the more "socially conscious" members of our community would rail against in the culture at large. Simply riding a bike doesn't magically grant all of your actions the virtue of political expression.
Celebrating a victory for free speech is one thing. Implying that one specific victory has implications for all bike rides is another thing entirely.
(*the bit about attacking the clerk was, of course, over-the-top, since I haven't heard of anyone doing that on a ride, but grant me some satirical license, ehwouldja?)
My point all of you pointmissers you and I wrote it in ALL CAPS was that he was able to use the freedom of speech defense because he was riding a bike. If he was WALKING around the block naked without signs or any other form of speech he would have no defense. The bike was the speech. What he told the judge during the trial was AFTER the fact. The judge ruled that "in Portland there is a tradition of naked bike riding as political speech".
As for the "being naked"="stealing beer" arguments...
Stealing beer is not politIcal speech unless you do it naked (on a bike, in Portland).
And the fact that you equated "stealing beer" and "littering" with "being naked" just shows that you have either:
1. Been raised by Catholics
2. Serious body issues
3. Small pipi
it will get appealed and overturned. Plus it only counts as poly speech in that jurisdiction, not even the whole state (at least until it is overturned..then it won't be poly speech at all)
PC, by stating that it "is one of the sillier ideas that I've seen gain traction lately" leads me to believe that you find that this protest ride was a protected forum of free speech has little validity for the defense of being naked.
I understand the ride was a political act by being naked while transporting themselves on a mode of transportation that exposes them to inherent dangers that might be encountered, due to the hide spread use of automobiles and the dangers that are inherit to there use. Nine-eleven was an inside job. This was planned and announced that riding a bicycle naked was the act that was going to be used to protest. . This is why it is a act that is a protected act of free speech. You stated this already, the article states this.
la duderina, what make you so sure, that the district attorney will appeal the ruling and that a higher court that has ruled that you will over turn the defendants innocences.?
The article stated that In 1985, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in City of Portland v. Gatewood that appearing nude in public can be a protected form of expression -- such as if it's done in political protest -- and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In this case it has been decided by the lower court that it is a protected forum of free speech, therefore it was ruled in this particular situation to be a protected form of expression
Bike riding isn't a political speech. It's not even political speech in Portland. Bike riding and being nude in Portland however IS political speech. The judge was correct in his ruling. I'm not sure what would happen if some random dood or doodise gets on a bike nude and tries to claim the same thing in Portland. Now that would be interesting.
all I'm saying is that what a trial court judge in Portland considers political speech may not be what a Federal district court Judge considers political speech. I'm not positive, but it is a likely outcome. Just as likely as it won't get appealed. whatever.
Earth Friend Jen still has to wear pasties and a thong to protest in Ojai.
Unfortunately the law is such that there is no middle ground between political protest and sex offender. If you lose the political protest defense you can be branded a sex offender for life with all the implications such as not being allowed to live within 2000 feet of a park in school in California.
My point all of you pointmissers you and I wrote it in ALL CAPS was that he was able to use the freedom of speech defense because he was riding a bike. If he was WALKING around the block naked without signs or any other form of speech he would have no defense.
If there were a documented tradition in Portland of people walking naked to protest oil wars, he certainly would have had a defense for walking naked. And if there were no tradition in Portland of cycling naked to protest oil wars, he wouldn't have gotten away with riding naked.
For that matter, he could have rented a Hummer and ridden around naked on top of it and, if people had previously done the same stunt in large groups in Portland, he could have presented the exact same argument (mutatis mutandis) that he actually did present in the cycling case, and gotten the charges thrown out by that judge.
And then some excitable person on a Hummer message board would have started posting about how some judge in Portland had just ruled that riding a Hummer "IS political speech." And that person would be wrong.
in that same sense.... if there was a tradition of riding bicycles in LA then riding bicycles would not be political speech however since riding bikes in LA is not traditional... then its political right?
in that same sense.... if there was a tradition of riding bicycles in LA then riding bicycles would not be political speech however since riding bikes in LA is not traditional... then its political right?
PC can't stand the idea of homies on fixies as political. Even if they are expressing the same thing he is only with less words. He thinks you need a college degree from a liberal arts college to form political speech.
What SAT score does one need to prove social conscience.?
What's stupid is that there is even a law that restricts people's ability to be naked in public.
Even stupider, that it is OK to break that code if one is making a expressly political statement.
Every "fashion statement" is political; as is life.
One of the most popular "political statements" in big cities is to get dressed up in a suit and tie and and walk around in big buildings and pretend that it isn't all a bunch of bullshit.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
PC = Politically Challenged