Should Janet Jackson or Justin Timberlake or anyone else actually be PUNISHED for the Superbowl Titty Massacre? My personal emotional gut reaction is not necessarily a reliable guide to best public policy, but my valve would instinctively suggest just forgetting it. Jeez, it’s just a couple of seconds of tit. On the bad side, they might merit the modest punishment of a little public ridicule for their foolishness.
On the other hand, a self-described “wild, bloodthirsty savage Comanche redskin” pretty much wants their scalps. Does this display run afoul of public indecency laws? Is it legal to take your clothes off to that extent in public?
David Yeagley aka Bad Eagle takes a fairly harsh, but seemingly reasonable outlook:
It’s called “indecent exposure,” and all states have laws about it. Texas has plenty of them. Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor, unless children are involved, and then it’s a felony. Millions of American children (under 17) were involved.
Jackson and Timberlake should therefore be charge with a mass felony, and immediately convicted, and fined, and sentenced to appropriate jail time.
Damn, that does sound kinda mean, but the man has a point. How exactly in principle is this different from Chester the Molester flashing children in the park? Or is that cool now, too?
This was fairly minor nudity, and there were other parts of that little show that were arguably more objectionable without specific nudity. Still, she made a point of pushing it to the wall with nudity in the middle of a prime time broadcast network Superbowl appearance.
Or are we now hereby proclaiming public nudity a constitutional legal free speech right or something? Not that there’s anythng wrong with that…
POST SCRIPT, 2-11-2004:
For my part, yup I often visit “racist” websites, though I’m not necessarily always thinking of them in that way. For example, I frequently visit Mac Diva’s Mac-a-ronies site, Al Sharpton’s campaign site (I’m VERY MUCH looking forward to voting for him in the Indiana primary) and Islamist sites from time to time. I also have been known to check out Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, KKK sites, and the NAACP.
I’ve been to al-Jazeera’s website, Fred Phelps anti-gay website, the RNC page as well as sites by various socialist and communist parties, moveon.org, and even the Democrat National Committee.
I’ve also been to Yeagley’s “Bad Eagle” site at least three or four times. I quoted a paragraph of him suggesting criminal prosecutions over the Superbowl Titty Massacre. I had not noticed that he had a gorilla picture next to another article about Jackson. That wasn’t very nice of him. I said so when Diva dug it up and drug it over here.
I fail to see why that was such a uniquely horrible sin on his part. It was mean and hateful, but it doesn’t mean much. I fail to see how it indicts ME in any way.
Diva found something that somebody else had written on another website, started invoking it here on MY post, and therefore declared this as evidence that I am a “racist”- whatever that would even mean- apparently through some process of guilt by association.
If you can be declared guilty by association, then you might as well consider me guilty of almost every possible sin. Jesus dined with tax collecters and sinners, as do I. I’ve “associated” to a greater extent than this with far worse people than David Yeagley, including particularly Mac Diva and the time I shook hands with Ted Kennedy.
Looking closer at Yeagley’s site, I see several points that I find particularly distasteful, but nothing violent or inciteful. I do not, however, see how his worst writing rates as bad as Diva’s often harsh bigotry, let alone her frequent straight up LYING. I regard direct dishonesty as generally worse than casual bigotry. Maybe I’m wrong.
Yeagley displays what appears to be some kind of wounded pride over what he considers special privileged treatment given to black Americans over his own Native Americans. This seems to lead him to having some unfortunate hateful attitudes towards blacks.
It might do you better to try to engage him nicely. What do you accomplish other than revving up some cheap sense of self-satisfaction by these vicious attacks on Yeagley? If what you wanted was to change his mind or help out society, you’d probably do better to speak respectfully to him. Make nice.
But you have no interest in understanding a non-violent fellow human being. You just wish to grandstand about RACISM. You get all the special feeling of self-satisfaction and superiority- but it’s actually good because you are RIGHT and he is WRONG.
I do not approve of any bad, yucky things he may say. However, the worst things I’ve seen on his site are not nearly as bad as the hatefulness that Ms Tek in particular has beamed his way. She was wishing DEATH on him for having a picture of a gorilla on his page? Are you people hearing yourselves?
I’ll note also that he was very civil when he came to the site. Ah yes, specifically note that I actively invited him to come defend himself after Diva started posting LIES about him on MY post.
If she is going to be allowed to continue doing this type of thing, then at minimum the individuals she defames should have a right to defend themselves. I don’t see how you could expect less. Christ, it’s a wonder we (meaning Eric) don’t get sued about once a week over the personal defamations Diva commits.
Yeagley certainly does not do that. He’s sometimes hateful over on his site, but I have not seen anything where he LIES (or curses). That at least is a virtue.
Nor, did I mention, does he wish death and torture on people- like Ms Tek among others- polluting MY article with that kind of ugliness.
I ask again: What the hell has come over the whole bunch of you people?
Now, I guess this won’t apply to Ms Tek, Diva, and some others. However, some of our Blogcritics claim the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
To those claiming the name of Jesus Christ, regarding your words and thoughts on David Yeagley, What Would Jesus Do?
Somehow this supposedly shows me in a bad light. I utterly, totally fail to see how. I do sometimes purposely write about things that I know will be considered provocative, and I don’t mind taking the heat for my words. But look at this post which is causing all this ridiculous uproar. What was even controversial here? I was not TRYING to raise hell. I was not offering a partisan political point, or even a legal pronouncement. In this case, I was caught totally unaware.
TDavid, how deep a need there is to check up a source depends on what the use is. This particular issue about public indecency was a simple point that didn’t particularly depend on some special credentials. If a site makes some special claim to knowledge, that seems to require more checking. For example, if I’m going to quote some site that claims to know that LBJ set up JFK, then I’d need to see their PROOF.
Yeagley was only making perhaps a broad claim that there are public indecency laws that may have been violated at the Superbowl. I don’t think there has even been any dispute whatsoever as to his factual claim that I quoted. That didn’t seem like a highly questionable claim to need close checking.
NOTICE: Do not assume that I agree with everything said anywhere and at all times with any person or source I may quote. Duh.
Again, what was it exactly that I did wrong here?
Best I can tell, some of you seem to want me to lead some lynch mob to get the dirty RACIST in our midst- or risk being similarly branded and ostracized. I’m not going to do it however, cause I STILL kind of like Diva.
By the way, I’m out of town this week on what I might call urgent family business. Sorry if I appear to be shortchanging giving a full answer to every thing all of y’all have thrown at me. I’ll check back in a couple of days.
Also, Phil cut off comments on this post for no discernable reason, which doesn’t help. I do not appreciate that. Apparently he somehow decided to stop MY discussion thread because some of you couldn’t control your nasty language and wishes for personal harm to this Indian with a website. Shape up people.Powered by Sidelines