1. Analogies are not literal. The Salem Witches are an appropriate comparison, because violence was used in the persecution of others. The poster was not suggesting that opening a truck door and burning someone at the stake are equivalent, but they are based on the same principle - that the ends justify the means - if someone is "immoral" per your stance, you have the okay to violently persecute them. Failing to realize this is failing to understand the concept of analogy.

2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. For a crime to have a victim, you must be able to identify a victim in all possible manifestations of that crime. If there is even one counter example, it is a victimless crime. Think to yourself for a moment, can you dream up any possible circumstance wherein one person could pay another for sex, and neither would feel victimized? To help, flip it around - put yourself in the potential-victims shoes - are there any instances in which you would have sex with someone for money, and not feel like a victim? How about $1 trillion to have sex with that one girl at your work, you know who I'm talking about. Would you feel victimized? This is as solid as 2 + 2 = 4, you cannot argue it. If there is a victim in only certain circumstances, it is another, different crime that was committed. Human trafficking is one example used here - another example would be patting someone on the back - legal after a football game, illegal if you are standing on the edge of a cliff. Prostitution is a victimless crime, end of story.

3. Videotaping in a public place is not a crime. The (legal) line was crossed when the "do-gooder" opened the truck without permission of the owner. The fact that he was videotaping them naked, having sex, makes it a sex crime. Voyeurism, peeping-tom-ism, is a sex crime in America - and rightfully so. What he did was equivalent (in principle) to kicking open a bathroom stall and videotaping someone on the toilet. The do-gooder here should justly be charged, and registered as a sex offender.

4. Intolerance is not bad, in fact its very good, its the process by which we define our entire culture. Examples of things we are rightly intolerant of in increasing order of severity: not washing your hands after the bathroom, not covering your mouth when you cough, interrupting others while they are speaking, infidelity, racism, holocaust-denial. Do you go out and burn an racist at the stake? Do you slap people when they don't wash their hands? Do you throw people out windows when they interrupt you? Do you kick open a door and videotape them? Do you beat them with a stick? No...you choose not to be their friend, or associate with them, or ignore their views - just like any other jackass on the street. That is how society and culture are defined. Imagine life without intolerance - where all societal action was open-game and nothing was (nonviolently) condemned. Life would be an unending episode of Jerry Springer.

5. Intolerance as expressed through violence, however, is not okay for the very simple reason that violence is not okay. It has nothing to do with the intolerance motivating it, because as we just realized, intolerance is a good thing. An act of violence always has a victim. Opening a truck door that is not yours is an act of violence, as much as kicking in someones front door. They are different in degree, not kind. Denying the holocaust is not kosher, and you should be very intolerant of such a person, much more so that someone who doesn't wash their hands after going to the bathroom for that matter. But what they are doing is different in degree, not kind. You have every right to nonviolently protest - to videotape them publicly denying the holocaust and put it on youtube, and forward it to their boss. However, you don't have any more right to burn a holocaust denier at the stake than you do to burn someone who doesn't wash their hands. A failure to understand this is a failure to differentiate between concepts of varying degree, and concepts of varying kind.

>> ^burdturgler:
Why blame him? Blame the cops!


Let me ask you something. What if the lady he picked up wasn't a prostitute and they were just two adults engaging in coitus without the exchange of money? They still pulled over and did it in the back of the truck and the nosy busybody still pulled open the trailer and videotaped them - just it wasn't an act of prostitution because no money was exchanged. Would you still side with the cameraman?

I don't know what you're saying enoch .. prostitutes are like the witches of Salem? Are you comparing innocent women burned at the stake to a fat slut who fucked some guy for 20 bucks in the back of a truck?


no..
the comparison is the fraudulent condemnation based on little or no FACTS.
which according to your argument it is the PROSTITUTES who are victims,(thats rich btw),and it is evil penis that is to blame here.
ok BT..lets try this analogy:
a man is outside my house selling crack.
he is there everyday when my kids are coming home from school.
do i:
a.chase down the buyers with video cameras?
or..
b.start videotaping the crack-dealer?

now if i use your logic,(which boggles me btw)the crack dealer is the victim,maybe a bad childhood,maybe he himself is addicted to crack,maybe he craves the company of strangers buying illicit drugs.
no matter....why?
because it is irrelevant to the argument.
nobody is questioning WHY these women are prostitutes,not even mr camera man,its the WHERE they are prostituting.
he has every right to be protective of his family.
i would be too.
my premise is based solely on his tactics.
they do nothing to diminish the prostitution problem,but do everything to make him seem an intolerable prick who is bent on belittling another man for participating in activities he finds repuslive.
seewhatimsayin?
that is all..
talk amongst yourselves.

Wild guess, this guy 1/4 part "citizen crusader" and 3/4 part voyeur who gets off to videos of people having sex. I mean seriously, what he did was akin to someone opening your front door and videotaping you having sex in your living room. He should be charged as a sex offender ala "illicit watching of sexual activity."

I would also sue the shit out of him if I was the Lowes guy.

>> ^longde:
Why does there need to be a whole dramatic scene in the first place?

>> ^Psychologic:
This kinda thing will happen in any country populated with people. The mistake many make is attributing such behavior specifically to police.
People are assholes. While that can't be completely prevented, it's nice to live in a country that allows for legal retribution.


yep.
as long as you have videotape,witnesses and a bank account that can fight this form of strong-arming.
what does one do if they dont have such luxuries?

blanky, you've got qm using your derogatory euphemism for democracy. If you can convert him to Libertarianism and videotape it, I promise not to make fun of his choppers.

^1 day would be 1 day too long to spend time in a cage for exercising your right to a) free speech (arrested for videotaping in a court lobby) and b) to remain silent (didn't give his name).

Would you prefer they starved and flogged him? Maybe that would've made for a more entertaining story for you?

>> ^geo321:
^csnel3. An intent to buy drugs defense was obviously created after the police knew the video exists. Otherwise, without the video I bet they would have charged assault against a police officer.


Good point! I'm gonna note that for future referance,: If there is not a charge of Assaulting a police officer, then the cops are aware of a videotape of the incident. Simple, but I'm with you Geo, probably deadly accurate.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

They might have oversold a little bit on the faux videotape artifacts- but this is a very good 80s recreation.

Solid American journalism. Go right for the gut with random acts of videotaped violence. Thank you for reporting on the real issues.

They took away his "police powers" and he now has to "take on administrative duties. That means no badge, no gun and no authority to make arrest."

He still has his job. Why not just fire him? If my employer had videotape of me "allegedly" pushing someone down the stairs, I'd be fired that same day.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the driver laughing his ass off, and the kid's friend smiling in the back would've made this completely obvious. I mean, this kid is apparently known as a prankster, with that frame of mind you'd think he'd catch on... immediately?

I'd also be tipped off by the fact that the driver randomly offered to pick him up for no reason, after watching a videotape of the guy on the verge of assaulting the kid for money. Yeahhhh, that's normal.

15 Step
Just
There There
All I Need
Weird Fishes/Arpeggi
The Gloaming
Optimistic
Jigsaw Falling Into Place
Idioteque
Fake Plastic Trees
Bodysnatchers
Videotape
Paranoid Android
Reckoner
Everything In Its Right Place
My Iron Lung
How To Disappear Completely

>> ^Farhad2000:
Am amazed by the comments here.
What if there was government suppressed the original Abu Ghraib photos?


They tried to, and failed.
---


What if what Bush doing this and not Obama?

Bush is a war-mongering torture fetishest. Obama is not. There's definitely an infinite difference. Bush tried to keep everything secret, and failed. Obama is acknowledging what's in these photos, and taking a different approach than you or I or Glenn Greenwald would take.

But the fact of the matter is, this is FOIA stuff, and at a certain point, Obama doesn't control their release. It's entirely possible that Obama is specifically taking this stance now, all the while knowing they will be released, but he comes out in the end as not the America-hater that would so easily be slapped on him.
---


Do you condone then the CIA destrcution of the torture videotapes as well?

Of course not and I have no idea why you'd equate the two. Obama isn't destroying these photographs, Bush destroyed the tapes.
---


What kind of precedent does this set? Any time Americans do something wrong and its damaging to a certain set of people they should be allowed to suppress it?


I think you're blowing out of proportion what I and others here have stated. I'm not personally seeking the concealment of them. I'm trying to take Obama at face value, and figure out the issue, on both sides.
---


I wanted these photos to be released so the evidence on prosecuting the people responsible for these policies would increase.

You don't need to release photographic evidence to the public and media at large in order to prosecute. Even Glen Greenwald understands that.
---

It sounds like you are all buying the Fox spin about this being leveled at those carrying out the orders and not those who put these orders in place.


OK so, saying "I'm on the fence about this issue" and then trying to have a conversation about it is equal to "buying the Fox spin"??? WTF?

That's pretty out there dude.

Am amazed by the comments here.

What if there was government suppressed the original Abu Ghraib photos?

What if what Bush doing this and not Obama?

Do you condone then the CIA destrcution of the torture videotapes as well? I mean that could inflame anti-Amereican sentiment.

What kind of precedent does this set? Any time Americans do something wrong and its damaging to a certain set of people they should be allowed to suppress it?

I wanted these photos to be released so the evidence on prosecuting the people responsible for these policies would increase. It sounds like you are all buying the Fox spin about this being leveled at those carrying out the orders and not those who put these orders in place.

You should all read this as Greenwald outlines it very well http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photos/index.html