Random News Stories

[Martin McCaffery]

To quote Patches O'Houlihan in Dodge Ball: "Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No. But, but I do it anyway. It's sterile and I like the taste."

[Leo Enticknap]

Here's one for the fast food connoisseurs, from the Seattle Times:

Manager accused of urinating in milkshake mix at Vancouver Arby’s

A Vancouver, Washington, man stands accused of urinating into milkshake mix, which was then served to between 30 and 40 people, while working as a manager at the Mill Plain Arby’s restaurant in October.

Stephen S. Sharp, 29, appeared Friday in Clark County Superior Court on a new allegation of second-degree assault with sexual motivation. He initially appeared Wednesday on suspicion of four counts each of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct and dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Judge David Gregerson raised Sharp’s bail Friday from $5,000 to $40,000. He is scheduled to be arraigned May 25.

When detectives executed a search warrant on Sharp’s phone while investigating the child porn allegations, they found a 16-second video showing someone urinating into a bag of milkshake mix, according to a probable cause affidavit. The video’s metadata showed it was recorded Oct. 30 at the Arby’s restaurant located at 221 N.E. 104th Ave.

Another manager at the Arby’s told detectives that on the day the video was taken, the restaurant sold at least one ice cream float and about 30 to 40 milkshakes, court records state.

Sharp allegedly admitted to police that he’d urinated into the milkshake bag at least twice but claimed he was “almost sure” that he threw the bag away after. He told detectives that if he didn’t throw the bag away, it would have been added to other mix by the next shift and served to people, court records state.

Probably improved the taste of it...

[Martin McCaffery]

I think we are pretty much on the same page. The booers are allowed to express their opinion, non-disruptively and the theatre owners right to eject them supersedes their right to express their opinion in a disruptive way.
I would suggest they exercise their right to protest by picketing the theatre, but the 1930's were when anti-picketting laws really took off and they would probably get arrested (or at least harassed) in a small Georgia town for doing so.

[Randy Stankey]

I haven't got a problem with a theater saying, "Patrons who cause a disturbance will be asked to leave."

If the people who formed the Booing Club caused a disturbance by booing too often, I would certainly tell them to be quiet or else they must leave. Since the presence of such a Booing Club was advertised in the newspaper, I (as owner of a theater) think it perfectly logical to place my own ad to that effect and try to have it placed on the same page as the club's ad.

It might be a person's right to protest, which I believe in, but it's also every other person's right to watch a movie without being disturbed. It is a movie theater's job to ensure just that.

When I was in college and some presenter (professor, administrator, speech-maker, etc.) said or did something that people didn't like, there might be a loud "Boo! Hiss!" from many members of the audience, in unison, followed by a loud round of applause. The whole thing would last, maybe, two seconds. Then the place would go dead silent. Of course, the prof. wouldn't like it and he might have grimaced at the audience but, unless somebody was causing a real disturbance, the speech would continue.

Even though behavior like that was considered "rowdy," most people considered it a person's right to protest like that.

[Martin McCaffery]

Yeah, "under color of law" was my argument in high school for wanting to sue a movie theatre for not letting me see a movie because the ratings were the law (which I knew they weren't). My parents wouldn't go along, dammit.

I'm willing to bet, however, that the law in Arkansas or Georgia in 1937 says, in legalese, "you can kick anyone out of your theatre for anything you want any time you wanted" and there wasn't a judge or jury in either of those states that would rule otherwise if the defendants were causing a disruption. Try booing a judge sometime.

And that doesn't even take into account what Southern courts thought of the Federal civil rights laws.

I couldn't find any further reference to the lawsuit and injunction from Martin, so it is hard to know what their arguments were and how they fared. Anyone can file for an injunction, and since the Booing Club was openly advertising to cause a disruption, not to express their opinion, and in a private business. They would pretty much have given up any First Amendment claim. After all, the full quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The problem is the panic, not the shout. These guys may not be causing panic, but they are intentionally causing a disruption that effects other people.

BTW, I've run across several instances of people, usually kids, falsely yelling fire in a theatre where people were injured or killed in the panic. Theatres burned a lot more frequently when they were made of wood. But I digress.

As for the injunction against the newspaper, it certainly wouldn't stand today. But when you think about the Times v Sullivan case that created the libel exception for public figures, that was the result of suing a newspaper for running an ad. That happened in the early sixties, so suing papers for ads may have been effective in 1937. There is certainly an "clear and present danger" argument to be made.

In 1937 the First Amendment still wasn't fully applied to the states, and state constitutions were enforced with a very different vision of free speech then we have now - especially in the South. Even if these booing clubs were will and able to fight these injunctions, they would be hard pressed to create a successful free speech argument.

[Randy Stankey]

...if the First Amendment applied to the states at the time...

Even if Federal law didn't apply to the states, there are many states that have statutes that either include Federal laws by reference or else they have their own similar laws.

There is a Federal statute, Title 18 §1983 that makes civil rights violations "under color of law" an offense but Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 11§H is a similar statute but it excludes the "color of law" requirement, meaning that ANYBODY, not just police can be sued for violating civil rights. On top of that, Federal § 1984 and Mass. §I state that, if the plaintiff prevails, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's legal costs.

These statutes were enacted after the Civil War, during the "Jim Crow" era to prevent police and other officials from using things like the old, "Busted Taillight" trick against Black people just to harass them. (Okay, I know that cars weren't invented in those times. I'm just using "Busted Taillight" as an example.)

The §1984 and §I parts of the statue were put in just because of what you say. It prevents officials or other people from doing bad things because they think that the other person doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer.

Many other states have similar. Plus, as you say, many Federal civil rights statues also apply to states, now.

The problem is that, in order for a law to have any real effect, somebody has to sue somebody else. There are still many lawyers who don't know the ins and outs of laws like Section 1983 or MGL Section H.

[Martin McCaffery]

Haven't found anything about the lawsuit, but did find the list of demands that was cut from the first wire service story.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Atlanta Constitution
August 5, 1937
AtlantaConstitution_8_5_1937.png

[Martin McCaffery]

Well, I hope to stumble across how that trial worked out.
Not really a First Amendment case as far as the booing. Not disrupting a show is a reasonable time and place restriction in a PRIVATE business.
And any lawsuit would be a deep pockets things anyway. The kids wouldn't have the money to defend against it, but the newspaper would, and, if the First Amendment applied to the states at the time, would have a first amendment defense.

[Randy Stankey]

Bullshit! First Amendment!

Maybe you can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater but you can boo the movie if you want. The theater can tell people to be quiet and stop disrupting the show for other people. If people don't do as they are asked, the theater can tell them to leave but suing them is out of line!

[Martin McCaffery]

They seemed to have at least inspired others, who could take out newspaper ads.
R.E. Martin is Roy Martin, founder of the Martin chain, which eventually evolved into Carmike.

Montgomery Advertiser
August 31, 1937
MontgomeryAdvertiser_8_31_1937.png

[Jon Dent]

That whole articles smacks of a Monty Python sketch.

[Leo Enticknap]

I wonder if this society advertised for members...

[Martin McCaffery]

MontgomeryAdvertiser_8_5_1937.png
They truly were the Greatest Generation
Montgomery Advertiser
August 5, 1937

[Leo Enticknap]

It's been a while since the last "man sodomizes himself with an unusual and distinctive foreign object" story, but this one was worth the wait.

Brazilian man shoves a 2kg DUMBBELL in his rectum... only for the 20cm-long weight to get STUCK - leaving doctors no choice but to pull it out with their hands

A Brazilian man who shoved a dumbbell in his rectum needed to get it yanked out by surgeons.

The unidentified 54-year-old waited two days before seeking medical attention after failing to extract the 2kg metal weight himself.

He turned up to a hospital in Manaus complaining of abdominal pain, nausea and being unable to defecate.

After an examination of his rectal region found no sign of what might be causing his symptoms, doctors ordered an X-ray of his abdomen.

Medics — who suggested the unusual case was of a 'sexual nature' — said the man was 'uncooperative' during the physical examination.

The X-ray revealed a dumbbell, which was almost 8 inches long (20cm), was lodged where the colon meets the rectum.

Medics sedated the man for their attempted extraction involving surgical tweezers, but couldn't remove the dumbbell.

Left with no other option, the team opted for the 'manual extraction', involving the surgeon shoving in their 'forearm'.

Writing in the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports, they claimed it was fraught with 'difficulties' but ended up a success with the man discharged after three days in hospital.

Doctors said the majority of patients admitted with retained rectal objects are white men between the ages of 20 and 40.

Sexual gratification is the most commonly reported reason for getting objects stuck.

This is partly to do with the number of nerves in the anus, making it highly sensitive.

For men, it can also simulate the prostate — an erogenous region of the reproductive system.

For women, it can also indirectly stimulate pleasurable centres in the vagina.

Medics also said many patients only turn up to A&E after repeated failed attempts to extract the objects themselves.

In this case, the man is expected to suffer no long-term complications.

But the authors of the report said other cases can result in internal injuries and faecal incontinence.

Dr Ana Elisa de Landa Moraes Teixeira Grossi and colleagues did not detail when the incident took place.

NHS doctors spend around £300,000 a year extracting items out of British rectums, experts believe.

The Royal College of Surgeons' report found that NHS hospitals had removed 3,500 objects between 2010 and 2019.

MailOnline has previously reported on people using toothbrushes, aerosol cans, toy figurines, and eggs in their pursuit of sexual pleasure.

I bet that surgical technique is one that is not taught in most medical schools...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

We have been reverting to a third world country for some time now, So what do you all expect?