She, I believe
1 Like
“Gentleman” is BoingBoing speak for not a gentleman at all.
1 Like
Welcome to bOINGbOING!
You’ll catch onto the lingo here in no time.
2 Likes
Can there be laws against Bible tracts disguised as US currency? Because that’s a serious dick move.
I pity the poor waitress who has to buy her kid’s asthma medicine with the… oh look a Bible tract… that her party of 10 after-church crowd left as a tip.
1 Like
they know most people mentally parse their url as “Dead I Version” right?
@ugh @franko and let’s all get it straight, the pubes left on the soap are the actual, real crime here…
1 Like
I read it as Dead Iverson. I is a small letter, so it tends to disappear when it’s inconvenient.
I don’t think most of them were ever real laws. The ones that were real laws were likely twisted from something mundane into a joke.
For example:
It's illegal to shoot a whale in downtown Atlanta on Easter morning.
That’s true. More generally, it’s illegal to recklessly discharge a firearm in Atlanta, but that’s not as stupid sounding.
to be fair, those hairs could come from anywhere…
I’m significantly editing this response, because I’m not sure how the statute of limitations applies in the case of the anecdote I was sharing. Sorry.
Ooh, now I’m intrigued.
PM?
No disagreement about the framing; when Florida Man does something illegal the fact situation is often pretty dumb, but that isn’t the law’s fault.
Though like I said people also conflate statutory law passed by legislatures, regulations created by executive agencies and judicial precedent. The one about pickles in Connecticut legally needing to bounce does seem to have a basis in fact inasmuch as in 1948 a guy was arrested and fined because his pickles didn’t bounce. However, it was because dropping a pickle one foot to see if it bounced was a quick and dirty field test to determine if the pickles were fit for human consumption and so was based on a regulation and not directly on a statute.
That’s a great link, thanks for posting it.
The 1948 guy wasn’t fined because his pickles didn’t bounce, he was charged for selling pickles unfit for human consumption. Like you said, the bounce was a field test but there were also lab tests that were the basis of the charge. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m guessing selling pickles unfit for human consumption is still a crime, but nobody is going to be charged for simply selling pickles that don’t bounce.
Maybe the artist should have taken a picture of a person selling a pickle not fit for human consumption. Hilarious!
I think I’m just testy because my relatives forward this stuff to me all the time. I used to look for a snopes link to send back, but that just ruins their fun. These days I just reply “Wow! That’s crazy!”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
