CitizenSugar -- Breaking News, Together.

Stevens Guilty of Felony Charges

CitizenSugar — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:23:32 -0700

Stevens Guilty of Felony Charges Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Senate Republican in history and patriarch of Alaska politics, was found guilty of felony charges for making false statements. The verdict could spell the end of a 40-year Senate career for a man who rose to be one of the most dominant figures in the upper chamber and who helped transform Alaska in its 50 years of statehood. The verdict was reached after the jury deliberated since Wednesday and found the 84-year-old senator guilty of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts from Bill Allen, the former head of Veco Corp., and other friends.

NY County Has to Remove DWI "Wall of Shame": Fair Move?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:15:27 -0700

Drunk drivers are losing part of their 15 minutes of shame after a judge's ruling deemed that New York's Nassau County had been violating due process by posting the mug shots of DWI suspects on its Internet "Wall of Shame." The county began posting the mug shots of DWI arrests on Memorial Day, and has since been sued by one woman who was pictured. She said the online gallery was unconstitutional as it was posted before her trial. The county attorney says the mugshots are public documents and are just being given a public airing. The judge however points to the power of the web, saying that posting the photos to the Internet creates "limitless and eternal notoriety." However, the county executive and proponent of the "Wall" says of the program, "The objective of what we're trying to do here is to change the culture that exists related to drunk driving, that it's not just a socially acceptable crime."Since the Memorial Day start of the program, more than 1,400 drunk drivers have been pictured, and drunk driving arrests are up 6 percent over the previous year.

NY County Has to Remove DWI "Wall of Shame": Fair Move?

Yes. Posting a picture of someone with the label DWI is an unfair "trial" and sentence.

The shots are public documents but the web isn't the best medium. It's too permanent.

No way. The police are just alerting the public and providing a deterrent to others.

Other. I'll post my shot in the comments.

German Faces Five Years in Prison For Holocaust Denial

LibertySugar — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:00:00 -0700

The trial of a 72-year-old former left-wing terrorist group founder, and current neo-Nazi, began today in Germany. Horst Mahler is accused of posting documents online denying the Holocaust. Mahler likes trouble, as he received an 11-month sentence last year for delivering the Nazi salute at his prison booking for a previous conviction. And in 2003, he had to pay thousands of euros in fines for saying the Sept. 11 attacks were justified.

Mahler could spend five years in prison, if convicted of Holocaust denial. German law specifically prohibits anyone from claiming that the genocide of the Jews did not occur. A total of 13 countries forbid denial, including: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.

Outlawing neo-Nazism is an obvious choice, but what about criminalizing Holocaust denial— is that a reasonable limit on speech, crucial to making sure the atrocities are never forgotten and never happen again? Should the prohibition include the Internet?

Source

Guilty Simpson On Own in Jail, Focused on Coming Appeal

CitizenSugar — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:53:11 -0700

After being found guilty of kidnapping and robbery, OJ Simpson is being being held away from other prisoners for his own safety, and is planning a motion for new trial. He's waiting to see if he'll be released on bond pending that appeal, a move considered unlikely due to the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted of. His attorney said Simpson will be alone, is planning not to do media interviews and is allowed to see only family members and a few friends.

Simpson will be held in Clark County Detention Center until his early December sentencing, then it's thought he'll be transferred to state prison. His lawyer says, "He is in isolated custody and being protected from other inmates. The jail is taking very special precautions to make sure he is safe." Surprised at the guilty verdict? Do you think it was payback by the jury? Are you into the OJ saga — or is the juice just not worth the squeeze?

Source

Man Fined For Taking "Unchivalrous" Photo: Snap Judgment?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:45:53 -0700

Ever been tagged in an embarrassing Facebook pic? In the UK you might just have a legal leg to stand on to stop those pictures from ever being taken. One 28-year-old mailman was just fined $200 for snapping what the judge deemed an "unchivalrous" photo of a woman. . . . decorating the gutter outside of a bar. The woman's friends called the police after the man took the picture and he was charged with breach of the peace.The judge says of the fine levied, "I'm going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it." His lawyer says he regrets the "error of judgment." Of snapping the puking pic his lawyer says, "It was ill-judged, it was a spontaneous act and entirely inappropriate. He accepts it was conduct liable to cause upset and did in fact cause upset. It's been a matter of severe regret for him. He's extremely anxious and very contrite about the affair." Source

Man Fined For Taking "Unchivalrous" Photo: Snap Judgment?

He totally deserved the fine. Consequences encourage people to behave better.

"Unchivalrous?" Is this the Middle Ages? She was the one misbehaving, not him.

Other. I'll reserve my judgment for the comments.

Troopers Riding in Big Rigs to Nab Drivers: Smart or Sneaky?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:30:13 -0700

Over a two days this week, Oregon State Police and sheriffs (perhaps better known by their CB radio code, "Boy Scouts") hitched a ride with big-rig truckers on the hunt for aggressive drivers who wouldn't suspect a "Smokey" ride along and wouldn't have time to "brush their teeth and comb their hair" (shout out for a radar trap ahead.)Leaving the "bubble gum machine" (cop car) at home, the troopers were able to nab 38 drivers in just two days. From their shotgun perches, most of the drivers were ticketed for driving over a "double nickel" (55 mph) and never saw it coming. The ODOT safety manager says "Research shows that most truck vs. car crashes could be avoided if drivers knew how to steer clear of unsafe situations. With this campaign, we hope to increase awareness, encourage safer driving practices and make a positive change in the risky driving behaviors of motorists — all of which will lead to fewer crashes, fatalities, and injuries on Oregon's roadways."Is planting troopers in a big rig a creative solution — or a little bit like a speed trap taken too far? Source

Troopers Riding in Big Rigs to Nab Drivers: Smart or Sneaky?

Smart. What better way to see what's really going on than in the middle of it?

Sneaky. It crosses the line from safe guarding to spying in my book.

Other. I'll tell you what I think in the comments.

UK Debates Holding Terror Suspects For 42 Days: Too Long?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:15:55 -0700

The US isn't the only country with a firm eye on terrorism — and they're certainly not alone walking the tricky line between government abilities to crack down in meaningful ways and civil liberties. The British House of Commons is set to vote on a measure allowing police to detain people for up to 42 days without charge if they're suspected of terrorism-related activities.

Human rights organizations are outraged by the provision. Amnesty International, has launched an online petition called, "Say 'No' to 42 Days" saying of the measure, "Allowing police to lock people up for a month and a half without charge will undermine basic human rights to which everyone in the UK is entitled." Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying that, "giving British authorities the power to detain terrorism suspects for up to six weeks without charge violates the fundamental right to liberty and risks undermining counterterrorism efforts."

Those closer to the government are speaking out as well. To see what they had to say,

Judge Throws Out Case Against "Ladies' Night": Right Call?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:15:54 -0700

A judge in New York City has thrown out a lawsuit alleging that "Ladies' Night" pricing at bars and nightclubs discriminates against men. The lawsuit was brought by an attorney known for his fight against gender-specific constructs like suing Columbia University for its Women's Studies department. (Have you heard the one about the Men's Studies department? It's called "History." But I digress.) Now the gender-equalizer is taking his fight to the $3 cosmo. The judge tossed the case saying that bars and nightclubs have a right to price their product any which way they'd like because they're not acting as representatives of the state. The attorney's case tried to prove that through the state-run liquor license program, it does just that. After losing, he called the judge a feminist and said that the toss-out was right on par with the deeply embedded gender discrimination in tons of American institutions. It makes one wonder if this crusading lawyer has ever gotten his hair cut or clothes dry-cleaned. I reckon he makes back the difference in "Ladies' Night" at the bar right there . . . Does any gender preference signify discrimination? Drinks aside, is the lawyer fundamentally wrong? Source

Judge Throws Out Case Against "Ladies' Night": Right Call?

Yes. Private institutions can deal with gender as they see fit.

It's tricky because the case seems silly, but the argument really isn't. I don't know.

No, the lawyer's right. How is preferential gender treatment OK, but the reverse isn't?

Other. Is it "Ladies' Night" in the comments? I'll head in there.

NE Town Bans Porch Couches: Should Lawmakers Relax?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Perhaps fearing scenes just like this dotting older neighborhoods, the town of Lincoln, NE, just passed a law banning indoor furniture from being used outside. The development could have big ramifications on the chillaxing abilities of the town's large population of college students, traditionally grand proponents of the "porch couch." The city council voted 5-2 in favor of the new measure, and no one testified against the proposal during the open public hearing. An aide close to the mayor says he intends to sign the ordinance into effect on Oct. 7. Other towns have similar aesthetic or quality of life bans on furniture outside, including Ames, IA, Boulder, CO, and East Lansing, MI, but some question whether the law unfairly targets the large population of students renting homes in older neighborhoods. Is it discriminatory? Should lawmakers have the ability to legislate what you can put on your own property? Source

NE Town Bans Porch Couches: Should Lawmakers Relax?

Yes! There's no harm in the couches, it's just neighborly — and it unfairly hits students.

Well, it's their choice to make the law, but it does seem like a crazy waste of time.

No way. Small things make a big difference and couches outside bring everyone down.

Other. I'll pull up a seat in the comments.

The Key to Safe Roads? Should the Driving Age Be Raised?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:34:45 -0700

First the drinking age gets a hard look, and now this? An influential auto safety group is calling for states to raise the legal driving age to 18. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety president says the move would be for everyone's own good — car crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers. He's presenting the plan at the Governors Highway Safety Association conference today — if states adopt the measure, the ol' 16th birthday might not be as sweet anymore. Not surprisingly, kids and lots of parents want brakes put on the idea — the loss of freedom for both parties is huge. One mom says, "Do we really want our kids dependent upon parents for virtually everything until they go to college, can vote and serve their country?"Here are the numbers: more than 5,000 teens die in crashes every year. Those crashes, per mile driven by a 16-year-old is almost 10 times the rate for drivers their parent's ages. Should the US follow Europe (and New Jersey) on this one? Most other industrialized countries in have a driving age of 17 or 18. Is safety (and potentially saving gas or fewer drivers on the road) worth delaying that big key hand-off another year or two? Source

The Key to Safe Roads? Should the Driving Age Be Raised?

Pedal to the Metal. This is a great idea with all kinds of benefits. Keep kids off the road!

Put on the Brakes! There are so many drawbacks to delaying the right to drive. No way.

Hmm. Keys are in my hand, I'll tell you what route I'm taking in the comments.

Too many driving puns! Too early for that! You may need a tune up. . .

Mexico's Supreme Court May Overturn Abortion

CitizenSugar — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:00:12 -0700

Today Mexico’s Supreme Court is deliberating on whether or not to overturn the 2007 law that legalized abortion in Mexico City.

Primarily meant to help the city’s poorest women, who had received one too many botched abortions at illegal clinics, the law has been met with unrelenting resistance in the Catholic country. Eighty-five percent of gynecologists have declared themselves conscientious objectors, and hospital staff members have been reported as hostile and demeaning, creating unnecessary impediments for women. At right, a woman lays out pictures of women who received abortions, during a demonstration in support of the law. About 8,000 women took advantage of it last year alone.

To see the problems they're grappling with,

Want to Know if There's Anyone You Can Sue? Find Out!

CitizenSugar — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:00:10 -0700

Slipped on a pile of goo and wondering if you have a case? If you have the Internet, starting next month you can log on to WhoCanISue and see for yourself. Started by a Florida lawyer, the website will help prospective litigants figure out whether they have a case as well as find a lawyer in one fell click. (Legal disclaimer: the lawyers will pay an annual fee of $1,000 to appear on the site.)

Though there are similar services out there, this one is the first that offers real-time access to attorneys. After a brief questionnaire, those with promising grievance will instantly be put in touch with an interested attorney. Easier access to the legal system seems like an improvement, but there might be a downside. To see what it is,

Got a Passport? The Best and Worst Places to Live in Europe

CitizenSugar — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:00:13 -0700

With Italy's new laws against sleeping, eating, drinking, and singing in public all aimed at making the place more pleasant (or less, if you fancy a chianti and snooze al fresco) you'd think it'd be in the top two European countries with the best quality of life. Not so amigos, as Bush would say.

Let's start at the bottom: The poor UK has the lowest quality of life in Europe — even though Brits earn the most — according to research released yesterday.

That money can't buy them happiness — they pay a king's ransom for essential goods: 18 percent above the average for diesel, 49 percent more for gas, and 5 percent more for electricity. Life expectancy in jolly old England is the third-lowest at 78.9 years, and the constantly gray sky might be a culprit: Britain gets 80 percent less sunshine than Spain, leading more than 40,000 people to flee in 2006.

They might have run right to Spain, which claims the number one slot among those studied, offering the best quality of life in Europe — even though salaries are below average. Old number two is France thanks to their unbelievably great vacation policy, at 40 days per year.

Where would you live in the ol' EU? Does France's commitment to time off strike your fancy?

Source

Au Revoir, Sanctuary: Canada Deports US Iraq War Deserter

CitizenSugar — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:00:41 -0700

US Army deserter, Robin Long, fled to Canada in 2005 to avoid serving in Iraq. Yesterday, Long was deported back to the US, the first time a resister to the US war effort in Iraq has been sent home by Canadian authorities. Long claims that he fled to avoid participation in an "illegal war of aggression in Iraq."

The judge who heard his case this week, ruled that Long couldn't provide clear evidence he would suffer irreparable harm if he was sent back to the United States. Though Long was sent home, in another deportation case last week the Federal Court blocked the deportation of National Guard Sgt. Corey Glass, 25, who also refused redeployment to Iraq, while it decides whether to hear his case.

Both Long and Glass are part of a group of about 200 American deserters thought to have crossed the northern border to avoid service in Iraq. To this point, Canadian immigration officials and courts have refused to grant them refugee status, with Prime Minister Harper's consent; he's ignored a nonbinding House of Commons motion that would allow the deserters to stay.

To see how this case compares to Vietnam, and the opposition to granting refugee status,

Britain's Libel Laws Take Piss Out of Freedom of the Press?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:45:37 -0700

Are the British aiming to squash free speech? Robert Murat, an official suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, has settled his libel case against several British newspapers for overconnecting him to her disappearance with headlines like "Sex Secret of Madeleine Suspect: Briton ‘Shared’ the Wife of Pool Cleaner at Villa." His pay out is thought to be close to $1 million. Murat lived close to location where Madeleine disappeared and was named the first formal suspect though he's denied any involvement in her disappearance last May.

Some consider the decision great.

Murat was libelled. Not once, but many times over. Scores of reports, and many headlines too, defamed him . . . he was often treated not as a suspect by papers but as a culprit . . . papers have been pushing at the boundaries of the British contempt rule for years. More is published about British crime suspects in advance of their being charged (and sometimes afterwards) than was ever the case 20 years ago. Why? Because they have got away with it.

Seems reasonable right? Accuse a guy of killing a little girl in the papers, pay a fine? Well, this free speech and freedom of the press issue doesn't stay on UK soil — British libel laws have a passport. To see how,

NE Town Proposes Law to Ban Harboring Illegal Immigrants

CitizenSugar — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:15:16 -0700

Fremont, NE, has made a move to become the first and only city to banish illegal immigrants — making the town the antithesis to famous sanctuary cities like San Francisco. The controversial law proposes a city ordinance that goes a step further than other city bans and will outlaw harboring and renting to illegal immigrants. The potential effect of the law is huge as the town, just west of Omaha, contains a Hormel Foods processing plant that relies on immigrant labor.

The longtime councilman who sponsored the proposal said that his constituents were "sick and tired" of the federal governments lax enforcement of immigration laws, and that he'll, "fight to the dying end to do what they want." To see what happened in the debate,

Jury Awards $11 Million Payout to Neighborhood Denied Water

CitizenSugar — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:00:32 -0700

Imagine one family with 10 children sharing two tubs of water between them on bath night. Imagine a neighborhood where residents either pay for private wells to be dug, haul water from cisterns, or collect rain water to be able to drink, cook, and bathe.

In your mental image, what year is this happening? What country is this taking place?

Did you say Columbus, OH, up until 2003? No!? Oh, yes, it's true — and the 67 plaintiffs denied public water service from 1956 up until five years ago have just been awarded $15,000 to $300,000 after civil rights attorneys sued and won a discrimination case in which residents of a mostly black neighborhood were denied public water service. The award totals $11 million.

The residents of the Coal Run neighborhood went without public water for decades. One resident says, "As a child, I thought it was normal because everyone done it in my neighborhood. But I realized as an adult it was wrong." The money will compensate the plaintiffs for pain and suffering as well as monetary losses. To see the defense's argument,

Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars — Victory For Justice?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:15:19 -0700

It's a big day for guns in the news: new Georgia laws go into effect allowing residents to carry concealed weapons into parks, restaurants, and onto public transportation, and in Florida, employees and customers will now be able to conceal firearms on private property if locked in a car. Then there's this story: Joe Horn, a 62-year-old Texan has been cleared by a grand jury yesterday after he fatally shot two men he suspected of burglarizing his next-door neighbor's home.Horn's case has sparked controversy between those who think he acted illegally and recklessly, and those who praise his swift action. Horn's attorney says, "he wasn't acting like a vigilante. He didn't want to do it," and that he's not a "wild cowboy" who shot unprovoked after he saw the two suspected burglars carrying bags out of windows of his vacationing neighbor's home. His lawyer says Horn was a scared man who was trying to defend his neighbor's home when the burglars came onto his property and threatened him, "He was scared. He was in fear of his life."The details of the night are recorded in a 911 call, where a dispatcher urges Horn, "Don't go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think." Horn responded, "You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them." Both suspects were shot in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun. After the incident, he called back saying, "I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick." The case illuminates part of the complicated relationship between guns and crime — in this instance, was the jury correct in letting him go? Was Horn acting in self-defense? Source

Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars — Victory For Justice?

Absolutely. Horn did what he had to do to defend himself, justice prevailed.

It's unclear, though since the victims were both shot in the back, I have my doubts.

No! He didn't have to go outside! That's the only reason he had to "defend" himself.

Other. I'll tell you what I think in the comments.

Vigilante Drug Arrests Clean Up MO Town — Under Fake Badge

CitizenSugar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:56:56 -0700

It was a small town overrun by meth, until a new sheriff came to town — a federal agent who immediately started ransacking houses, cuffing people and naming names. It seemed like the town of Gerald, MO, known as "a meth capital of the United States" was getting a big makeover of the law and order variety. Except for one tiny problem: the "law" part of that equation wasn't exactly legal.

Known by the locals as "Sergeant Bill," the new officer assured residents that no search warrants were needed because he worked for the Feds. After the local weekly paper made a couple of inquiries into the matter, the reign of justice by Sergeant Bill, crumbled. The Sergeant wasn't any kind of federal agent — Bill, it seems, is actually Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed trucking company owner from a few towns over. To see the rest of Sergeant Bill's story,

Front Page: Worst Afghanistan Toll, Cell Phone Law, Obama to Expand Faith-Based Programs

CitizenSugar — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:05:03 -0700

Worst Afghanistan Toll:
June was the deadliest for foreign troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 fall of the Taliban, and it was the second month in a row where the toll exceeded that in Iraq. At least 45 foreign troops were killed compared with 31 soldier deaths in Iraq. The casualty rate is thought to be tied to the Taliban's aim for headline-grabbing attacks that will promote their growing strength. Almost half of the 122 foreign soldiers who have died in Afghanistan during 2008 were killed in June, most by roadside bombs.

Cell Phone Law:
California's hands-free cell phone law goes into effect today. Offenders not using a hands-free headset while driving will be subject to a $20 fine for a first offense, and $50 for subsequent offenses. The law does not outlaw texting while driving, leading some to think the claims of safety are relative. Meanwhile, Sioux Falls, SD, has been named the safest driving city in the US.
Obama to Expand Faith-Based Programs:
Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand funding for President Bush's faith-based programs, pointing more Federal social service dollars to religious groups — and he'll announce that he will support some ability to hire and fire based on faith. The plan will be unveiled during remarks at the Eastside Community Ministry in Ohio. Obama is expected to say, ''the challenges we face today. . . are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.''

Source

Tough Love or Abuse? House Sets Juvenile Boot Camp Limits

CitizenSugar — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:00:53 -0700

This week, the US House approved a measure implementing national standards on juvenile boot camps intended to rehabilitate troubled youth.

The bill passed 318-103, and would nix excessive "tough love" practices like withholding water, food, clothing, shelter or medical care. The new law would allow physical restraint only when the safety of the child or others is in peril, and it would allow residents reasonable access to a telephone.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said of the decision, "Today we are taking an important step toward ending the horrific abuses that have gone on far too long in the residential programs for teens."

It's not a slam dunk, however. The White House has indicated they're against the plan as it expands federal oversight, and the Senate still has to vote. To see how many claims of abuse have been reported,

Removing All Traffic Laws Makes Town Safer! Make Sense?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:15:37 -0700

A town in Germany has abolished all traffic laws, signs, and crosswalks. Sound like a recipe for bumper cars meets demolition derby? Not according to town officials. In fact, getting rid of all the laws has had the exact opposite effect — by allowing drivers and pedestrians to make all of their own decisions about what's safe, one stretch of road that used to see 45 accidents a year and traffic jams, has become smooth and safe, and drivers have slowed down overall. The plan is called "Share Space" and exists in towns in England and Holland as well. The idea is that everyone on the road including pedestrians and cyclists have equal rights — no sidewalks even! Local police say that without rules, people — wait for it — think for themselves (!) and communicate more and assume the responsibility of powering a huge pile of metal. Though locals say it took a bit to get used to the freedom and responsibility, it's increased safety and renewed a village-y atmosphere.Does it make sense that by removing laws intended to increase safety, lawlessness actually makes a bigger difference? Could this phenomenon apply to other places and types of laws as well? Should it?

Removing All Traffic Laws Makes Town Safer! Make Sense?

Yes! Laws become a stand-in for personal responsibility. We need more of the latter.

It's dicey. I think both laws and responsibility need to coexist equally to make both work.

Stop sign here! Without laws, there's no enforcement or standard of safety. Big mistake.

Other. I've got my turn signal on and I'll tell you in the comments.

Man Gets Jail After Buying Beer For Minor. Justice Served?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:01:59 -0700

This is sobering food for thought as we head into the backyard beer-and-barbecue season: David Leone, a 26-year-old man of Vandergrift, PA is heading to prison for buying alcohol that a minor consumed. Leone pleaded guilty for furnishing beer for a party where a sixteen-year-old girl proceeded to drink herself to death. Lynn Scheuring died of alcohol poisoning with a blood level of 0.44 — five times the legal limit in PA.Leone has been sentenced to six to 23 months prison time for providing the alcohol and of furnishing alcohol to minors and the corruption of minors. The woman who was renting the house where the party occurred is also serving up to 23 months for involuntary manslaughter. Given that the people sentenced to prison merely provided the setting and means — and didn't force the girl to drink to excess — should they be punished for what was ultimately her own choice?Source

Man Gets Jail After Buying Beer For Minor. Justice Served?

Absolutely! He was the adult. If he purchased alcohol, he's responsible for any results.

No way. Buying beer is not a contract requiring you to be responsible for any outcome.

Other. I'll tell you in the comments.

Blame Canada? Should Military Deserters Be Deported?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:45:41 -0700

A BBC feature today tells the story of a US National Guardsman who deserted to Canada after being deployed to Iraq. As Canada prepares to deport him to face trial in the US, Corey Glass is arguing he should be allowed to stay.According to Glass, when he joined the Indiana National Guard, he was told that he would perform humanitarian work filling sandbags in the event of a hurricane — not required to serve in combat unless there were troops occupying the US — instead, he was sent to gather intelligence in Iraq. As he began to realize the repercussions of the American lead occupation, Glass wanted out. While on leave, he fled to Toronto where he is now asking for political asylum. However, he still faces deportation to the US, a move that will most likely land him in prison for deserting his obligations to the military.Glass said: I should have been in New Orleans after Katrina, not in Iraq. I believe the Iraq War is illegal and morally wrong. I believe I have a duty to refuse to take part in a war not sanctioned by the United Nations, started on the basis of lies.

Canada has passed a motion stating the Canadian government will accept conscientious objectors from the United States and allow them permanent resident status. They have also asked all deportation proceedings against soldiers currently living in their country cease, though this may not apply to Glass. The editor of the paper that ran Glass' plea said, "does Canada really want to cast itself as the protector of fair-weather American soldiers fleeing their duty?" He sums up his thoughts like this: Six years ago, Corey Glass picked the wrong career. Three years ago, he picked an illegal way to abandon it. It's time for this ex-soldier to go home and pay the price for what he's done.

Do you agree? Should Glass be deported and put on trial, or should Canada be a refuge from militarism?Source

Blame Canada? Should Military Deserters Be Deported?

No contest. Canada should deport him and make him stand trial.

The government is trying to make it easier for objectors, he deserves fair treatment.

He's objecting on fair grounds — he was misled. Canada should not deport him.

Other. I'll tell you in the comments.

Air India Attendants Too Fat (Ugly) to Fly? Court Says A-OK

CitizenSugar — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:00:23 -0700

India's state-owned airline, Air India, has just won the right to prevent attendants from taking flight for carrying on extra weight. The Delhi high court ruled on a case filed by five flight attendants protesting the fact that they'd been grounded by the airline for being too fat to fly. They're expected to appeal.

The judges sided with the airlines, saying a chubby crew presents a safety hazard — but then there's this addition to the judgment — in the highly competitive airline industry, flight attendant's physical condition and appearance play an important role in her overall personality. (Emphasis, mine.) How can someone's appearance dictate her personality? I buy that flight attendants have to be in a physical condition good enough to save people from a burning plane, but the beauty factor of the ruling is not so pretty.

The government-run airline is up against private airlines who don't clothe their employees in traditional saris, opting for Western get-ups, and they've pinpointed the crux of being competitive with their employees' looks. At a recent recruitment drive the airline refused applicants with acne or bad teeth.

Can a court rule that the attractiveness of an employee has business ramifications? OK, some industries — modeling, and the like — depend on appearance, but maintaining safety on an aircraft? Is the ruling fair justice, or just pretty ugly?

Source

World Wide Web of Justice: People's Court RAW

CitizenSugar — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:15:14 -0700

I'll admit, in my youth I abused TV courtroom dramas. Hey, I was young, it was summertime, and the talkshow/reality TV circuit was in its nascent stages. That's why to this day I can recite the whole opening to The People's Court. You know, "both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum, The People's Court.

You can imagine my excitement about this: People's Court Raw. It takes the court concept and smashes it into YouTube, letting bickering parties upload videos of their side of the argument, and letting the Internet community decide who wins. This is why the Internet was invented — so we can all be Judge Wapner. It's so brilliant, it just might work.

Cases on the docket now and open for voting: "Why do we need 4,000 giant dog beds?" and "Do you think it's OK if guys show emotion and cry?" That's it folks, you won't hear another peep from me today, I'm going to being playing bailiff on this site.

Would you submit a case for adjudication by a jury of your Internet peers? What question would you like settled? Is it even worth it without Doug Llewelyn asking the tough questions in the lobby?

DC Institutes Police Checkpoints to Combat Bad 'Hoods

CitizenSugar — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:00:18 -0700

Where's the line between keeping people safe and a police state? In Washington DC the line just got a lot finer. They're implementing a new plan to seal off entire troubled neighborhoods and establish security checkpoints to monitor who comes and goes and why.

They're calling them "Neighborhood Safety Zones" and will require those entering the area to prove that they work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there — or they'll be sent away or face arrest. The zones are a last ditch effort to quarantine areas thought responsible for the spiraling crime rate plaguing the city.

Police Chief Cathy Lanier has been implementing out of the ordinary programs hoping to reverse the mayhem, but has had to scale back some — like plans for warrantless door-to-door searches for guns and drugs, and "All Hands on Deck" weekends aimed to bump up police presence. To see who's against the move,

Free Minutes? Teens Sending Naked Pics Via Cell Phones

CitizenSugar — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:15:15 -0700

Remember when school rumors about who was slutty were of the analog variety? That is to say, whispered behind hands in the hallway? Not anymore folks. In this all blog, all the time kids are snapping digital proof of their moral transgressions — and beaming naked pics of themselves to classmates' cell phones, who of course forward the illicit snaps onto friends.

Think what happens in cyberspace stays there? Nope. In La Crosse, WI, a 17-year-old boy was recently charged with child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child and defamation in conjunction with posting nude photos of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend on his MySpace page. The naughty pics came from a cell phone.

The impulsive racy acts have consequences lasting well beyond "delete." To see how,

"Reason of Insanity" Men Get Voting Rights Back. Right Idea?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:46:28 -0700

The Rhode Island Board of Elections has reinstated the voting rights of two men who had them taken away last year. The men were found two decades ago to be not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. However, they now live in a psychiatric center and neither man had ever been released from mental care custody.Rhode Island law says both convicted felons and those “lawfully adjudicated to be non compos mentis” — or sane — aren't allowed to vote. Lawyers for the men appealed for their right to ballot on the grounds that the finding of insanity applied only to “a brief period of time” and that “since it covers a brief period of time, it didn’t seem to persuade the Board of Elections that the men should lose their right to vote.” Let's remember that the "brief period of time" was long enough to let them escape being charged with murder, though they killed four people between them.The subject of felons getting to vote came up when we were all watching Recount — the Florida felon list played heavily into the plot. Is the right to vote something that should be taken away permanently? Do we need a more nuanced system where those convicted of federal felonies could re-earn voting rights? Or should we be even more selective as to who gets to pick our leaders? Was Rhode Island right to reinstate the rights of the mentally ill men? Source

"Reason of Insanity" Men Get Voting Rights Back. Right Idea?

Totally. They stood trail in the appeal so they're not insane — they should get to vote.

Rights should be considered on a case-by-case basis. These men earned the right back.

Are you crazy? They weren't found guilty of murder because of insanity! No votes!

Other. I'll tell you my opinion in the comments.

Ten States Get New Sanctions to Stop Teacher/Student Sex

CitizenSugar — Fri, 30 May 2008 06:00:00 -0700

Ten states have taken action and at least four more states are considering legislation to stop sexually abusive teachers. The new sanctions follow a stream of arrests and reports that have documented the growing problem of educators victimizing students — like the case of Debra LaFave, pictured here.

A nationwide Associated Press investigation found 2,570 educators lost their teaching credentials or were punished from 2001 through 2005 after allegations of sexual misconduct. The number seems high, but experts say the problem is even bigger than those numbers suggest. Many cases go unreported as victims fear retribution and accusations are difficult to prove. To see which states are doing what,

101-Year-Old Gets Driver's License Until 2011. Too Old?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:00:12 -0700

Lillian Cox, 101, of Tallahassee, FL, won't have to trade in her 1984 sedan for a scooter just yet. The spunky dame has been driving since 1915 and has received the state's blessing to continue to do so for another four years. Her license just got renewed until 2011.Cox said, "they're surprised that I'd get a driver's license at 101. But I have four more years." Drivers around town might look twice. "I'm sure I look (101 years old) but they don't let me know that," she said while driving around a neighborhood.She's been invited to the Tonight Show with Jay Leno for her feat — and hopes that she won't have to drive herself. She'd prefer a limo instead.While Ms. Cox passed her driver's test, is the customary four-year extension a good idea past a certain age? Should additional testing be required for older drivers? After age 90, would a yearly review be a good idea — or should we trust people to know when to turn in the keys?Source

101-Year-Old Gets Driver's License Until 2011. Too Old?

Yes. Age can change abilities quickly. Before 18 and after 85 should be tested more.

It's an individual thing, not related to age. If this woman is good at 101, she'll be fine.

No changing of the rules for age. People need to be responsible for their own actions.

This article didn't say anything about her constantly on turn signal! Weird.

Other. I'll take this exit into the comments.

Spanish Twins, Separated at Birth, Sue for Millions

CitizenSugar — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:30:22 -0700

You know that movie Big Business where Bette Midler and Lily Tomlin play twins switched at birth? This is like that, but in Spain — and with a lawsuit. What happened?

In 1973, a set of identical twins were accidentally separated at birth. One of the twins was allegedly removed from her crib shortly after birth and accidentally replaced with another girl. To see how they figured out what happened

Can I See Some ID? Sex Offenders Get Tag on Their Licenses

CitizenSugar — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:15:17 -0700

Maybe more so than other crimes, a convicted sex offender's punishment does not end with jail time served; it follows him onto the National Sex Offender Registry, onto the Internet, and soon, in Tennessee, onto his driver's license.

Starting Sept. 1, all convicted sex offenders in Tennessee must hold a newly designed license. It will bear a mark to notify police of their sex-offender status.

While I don't envision kids at the playground asking candy pushers for ID anytime soon, it wouldn't matter if they did: ID checkers will not (or should not) be able to distinguish the license from any other Tennessean's, because the mark will only be viewable to the trained eye — like a big scarlet letter written in invisible ink.

Proponents say the new law will help ensure the safety of children. If a sexual offender is pulled over, the license will prompt police to watch for signs otherwise ignored in a routine traffic stop. To see the incident behind the law,

CA Lawmaker to Profit From Porn — Sexy Gets a 25% Tax

CitizenSugar — Tue, 27 May 2008 06:00:33 -0700

Sacramento just got an influx of exotic dancers recently. No, Hugh Hefner didn't move the Playboy Mansion; the girls were there protesting a new tax increase threatening to devastate the adult film and entertainment industries.

A Southern Californian assemblyman has proposed a 25 percent tax of gross revenues on producers and distributors of adult material. This will include tariffs on not only videos, but also strip clubs, magazines, and cable television. The sponsors of the bill believe that the adult industry “deserves it” since they're a prime cause of sexually transmitted diseases and create a species of men who become so addicted to online sex that they lose their jobs and then live off of the state’s programs. At $4 billion of revenue a year, it's not exactly a bunch of singles stuffed into the state's garter. To see who's not into it,

Landmark Decision in Manboob Ogling Struggle

CitizenSugar — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:25:43 -0700

Landmark Decision in Manboob Ogling Struggle Last year a British court found Kevin Bassett, 44, guilty of violating the 2003 Sexual Offences Act after he secretly filmed a man in his swimming trunks and no top at a swimming pool. Lawyers argued that the man's chest did not constitute "private parts," and the act only referred to women's breasts as such. A judge this week squashed that ruling, saying, "This act didn't mean to refer to the male chest but only to female breasts, it follows that the judge's directions on the meaning of breasts was erroneous." And check out Giggle's legendary picture collage and take on the case.

Girl Seeks Rape Justice on YouTube: Too Much Sharing?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:45:08 -0700

It's a grim addition to the court of YouTube: a Florida 16-year-old who says she's a victim in a rape case that's gone unprosecuted by the Orange County state attorney's office is airing her plea for justice on the video-sharing site.

Get Flash to see this player.

In the video, she says, "Hi, my name is Crystal . . . I need some help. I didn't want to do it this way, but it's the only way I know that's going to work, that someone out there in the world is gonna listen to me. "The prosecutor wrote in her case file since Crystal was "a mere 1 month away" from turning 16, when it would be "legal to give consent," her case would not be prosecuted. Florida law states that a 15-year-old cannot give consent to sex. To see the danger behind this use of technology,

California Supreme Court Overturned Gay Marriage Ban

LibertySugar — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:56:15 -0700

Just moments ago, the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The court held that "to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The court ruled 4-3. Unless overturned by the US Supreme Court, gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California. The SF Chronicle reports that:

Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the "bride" and "groom."

The case goes back to February 2004, when SF Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender because he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law. California's highest court just agreed with him.

Source