first point :
Both sexes have 'boobs' Its just that natal females have more developed breast tissue, all oestrogen does is to cause that tissue to develop ( to simplify )
FYI lactation and breastfeeding is even possible in men look (up the Aka tribe)
The second is just an opinion, which I feel free to ignore. although I have to admit to a slight agreement with you on 'fatass's ' but it's my body so I'll do what the f*ck I want with it
I'm in the UK and for what it's worth I'm a transsexual currently growing her own boobs, (not bad, a bit more than a B cup at the moment
The situation is interesting though, if I'm in male mode and strip my top off from there in a situation where male bare-chestedness is appropriate (say a normal beach) then that is OK as far as the cops are concerned.
But it's not OK if I strip off from a Skirt and Bra.
I actually find this quite an enlightened attitude. In the rare case that I'm presenting as male I'm treated as one
When I'm presenting as female then I'm treated as one
Which is how it should be. I do find this whole thing about nipples (in the USA ) a bit ridiculous, and to be honest a bit childish, it smacks a bit of giggling in the playground
It is however an insidious way of introducing censorship.
In the UK we treat sexuality ( and nipples ) a bit more seriously, strangely thanks to the murdoch press and the Sun (a low brow, very popular newspaper ) girls on page 3
But we fall down considerably on freedom of speech at the moment ( witness the guy being arrested for a burning poppy on his FB page along with calling squaddies c*nts, as if they would care )
You're quite correct I could in certain circumstances become bound under that 'law' if I said the wrong thing, in the wrong place. I wouldn't do that because every person is in my opinion entitled to their own illusions/delusions. i.e. freedom of belief
On the other hand as I am probably a 'criminal' in the eyes of at least one set of laws, why should I bother to obey any law I didn't agree with?
As a UK citizen I am now subject to three or possibly four sets of laws
UK law(and it's variant if I travel to Scotland or do business there, Scots law) EU law and now US law.
UK law is all well and good, I was born and brought up here so I have a pretty good idea of what I can and cannot do. (Scotland has roughly the same criminal law but a different civil law system I think)
EU laws, which generally have something to do with commerce, are not too bad as to have any effect on me they have to be translated into English law, usually with all sorts of unnecessary add-ons and gold plating. Just occasionally the prats in Whitehall will get slapped for some fundamental human rights violation which is OK by me.:-)
Just as an aside, a lawer friend once explained to me that in its simplest form UK law generally says 'What isn't forbidden is allowed'. But that Continental (EU) law says 'Everything is forbidden except for what is allowed'. He followed on from this to say that 2 things stemmed from this, in the UK what is forbidden rises over time, but in Continental (EU) Law what is allowed rises.
and now to US law, which seems fundamentally different from most other jurisdictions and seems to apply, regardless of UK law, whenever I travel, do business, or go online. If I break that I can now be shipped off to the US for trial as a non-person/terrorist/someone whose annoyed a US business.
I like to think that if the last ever applied I'd behave like any true US citizen " You can ship me off to your godforsaken country over Your dead body!'
Good luck on keeping track of what laws you break!
Except that a Vermont judge recently ruled that password(s) contained in one's head are protected under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. just like any other information in your head. It was discussed right here on Slashdot.
As for threatening law enforcement officers: say nothing, know your rights, and keep your cool. The law enforcement officer is NOT your friend and you shouldn't speak to them or answer their questions. You have a right to remain silent and you should use it. BTW every attorney that I have ever heard opine on the subject has said that it is better to say nothing than to answer some of the questions but not others. Don't let them scare you into giving up your rights with their Gestapo crap. Remember, if they are questioning you, especially if they are threatening, then there is NO way that you are NOT going to be held (i.e. arrested) for a while anyway until the matter either goes before a judge or they have to let you go (48 hours max w/out cause before any attorney can force them to let you out), so don't be dumb and tip your hand right at the start. Also, remember that if you ever get your equipment back then you can never use it or those passwords again (who knows what bugs they may have planted before releasing it back to you). You basically have to wipe and start over on new hardware.
Disclaimer: IANAL so if you find yourself in a situation like the one above find yourself one that you can trust and let them do the talking, but remember that the police are NOT your friends.
yeah right but its not 48hours in the uk anymore.....you try keeping quiet for 42DAYS
Saturday's New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the "deadliest weapon aimed at American troops" in Iraq. The author notes, "Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile."
What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than "civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies."
How can you work when the system's so crowded?
