Because You’re Still Free To Be Crass

A prosecutor in Charleston, West Virginia, got a little pissed off apparently, because he couldn’t convict someone for doing something he didn’t appreciate. 

So Delegate George Ambler, R-Greenbrier — why does it always have to be a Republican? — has introduced a new bill to make what upset that prosecutor so much into a criminal act.

Very often, when I write a post like the one I’m about to write, the vampire control-freaks come tearing out of their coffins — oh, wait, given what this post is about, that might be in bad taste….

What I’m trying to say is, “Let me insert my usual disclaimer here for the ignorant, who are incapable of understanding that it’s possible to believe some things without having to believe everything else.” In other words, this post is going to be about the stupidity of trying to create more and more laws to control tasteless behavior by making it a crime to be tasteless in a particular way. But my saying this should not be taken to mean that I am not offended by the tastelessness of my fellow citizens.

I am also offended by how some of them look.

But seriously…

Passing more and more laws to allow greater and greater control over more and more people — essentially working towards the goal of turning practically everyone into criminals — is more tasteless than the tasteless behavior of the people these other tasteless people are trying to control.

Screw it. What I’m really trying to say is that I’d rather be exposed to tasteless people with no respect for my stomach than to those of you who have no respect for freedom. Just because someone’s behavior does not conform to your own particular picture of “what’s right” and “what’s wrong” does not make it criminal.

Not even if you pass a law to make it criminal.

Okay. Okay. So what is the specific tasteless behavior the Advocates of the Police State are trying to control now? I mean, that’s all you really care about right? You don’t care that I’m over here having a conniption fit about the Police Staters. You don’t care that someone wants to pass another stupid law. You don’t care that jails, probation departments, courtrooms, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others are going to be called into service to babysit yet another ignorant person with a lack of basic manners and social sense.

You just want to know what the new proposed bill is about. In fact, half of you are about to give up on reading this post – if you haven’t already — to go and google the name of the delegate I posted above so you can find out “where’s the beef?”

Fine. It’s not beef. It’s just meat.

Human meat. Someone died. Someone else took a picture of them after they died.

And the prosecutor says,

“I think a lot of people have had a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “‘My gosh, it’s got to be a crime, isn’t it?’ It isn’t.”

Yeah, it isn’t. For a very good reason. Because it’s stupid. It’s tasteless. It shows an individual completely lacking in social graces, someone who doesn’t care much about other human beings — they probably ought to make him a prosecutor. Or a judge. Or, better yet, a politician.

You can read the rest of the story yourself.

But, for God’s sake! Do we really not have enough crimes on the books? Do we really need more? You know that sucking sound some people make when they pull air in really fast through a snot-filled nose so they can swallow — or, worse yet, spit — a lugee? That really makes me sick to my stomach.  Can we make that a misdemeanor, too? 

Or maybe we should accept this suggestion from a Yahoo! commenter:

Why not make everything illegal, and just let the cops exercise their good judgement about who gets arrested?

Given that the cops are always right, and we can trust them implicitly, let’s allow them to do their job, and keep us safe, by giving them the needed power to get the bad people off of the street.

Discard the Bill of Rights now. Make all actions illegal, and let’s give our children a future they can enjoy.

I’ve got a better idea: how ’bout we make it a felony to propose stupid laws that criminalize boorish behavior, especially when the commission of that boorish behavior is rarer than an intelligent politician or prosecutor?

Comments

• February 28, 2013, Brenda A. Linder writes: OK I bit. I also read the article. Another one of those moves by a politician and/or law enforcement that would really make me laugh - if the basic misunderstanding of a free society were not so prevalent. So, let me get this straight: There are a lot of exceptions in the Bill, however, protecting the First Amendment Rights of journalists was not one of those enumerated exceptions. The Rep. states it's necessary to "...protect you and I from seeing a picture...." I don't need any stinkin' protection from a picture. And, it is a crime if the picture is not taken for a "legitimate" purpose. The prosecutor says the taking of a picture of a corpse cannot be for "satisfaction." I can imagine it now - Counsel Horowitz in West Virginia, arguing that a well composed photograph must certainly be "legitimate." Or, "Your Honor, my client was NOT satisfied with this picture, therefore...." The possibilities are endless.

Related posts:

• Where in the World is Client Sandiego?
• What’s Good When You’re Goosed
• Second-Guessing Your Attorney