Is Gender Ideology Lewd and Lascivious Behavior?

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Gender Fluidity / Obscenity Laws

____________________________

In today's electric climate of biology and gender, a sociological theory on how and what people are is a controversial one. Are you nature or nurture? Biology or psychology? Are we a product of our genetics or are we at the mercy of our own illusion? 

Is there male and female? Or, is the human race bound by gender ideology: I am what I feel?

Social justice advocates, activists, and warriors will yell and scream about exploring our own sexuality even in the classroom. However, is this discussion of our sexual identities considered in the realm of the legal definition of obscenity?

1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, § 8 (1712), Mass.Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses.

In light of this history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. This phrasing did not prevent this Court from concluding that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, obscenity law was not as fully developed as libel law, but there is sufficiently contemporaneous evidence to show that obscenity, too, was outside the protection intended for speech and press.

So when does teaching about biology and psychology step into obscenity?

See also Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 U.S. 230, 242, where this Court said as to motion pictures:

. . . They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. . . .

(Emphasis added.)

We perceive no significant difference between the meaning of obscenity developed in the case law and the definition of the A.L.I., Model Penal Code, § 207.10(2) (Tent.Draft No. 6, 1957), viz.:

. . . A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters. . . .

Hasn't Gender Ideology gone from wholesome to the appeal to the morbid interest in nudity and sex?

We have children being taught that their bodies do not conform to their personalities. Children are being placed on harmful drugs, their minds twisted into delusion, and their sexual identities, nude construction used as political fodder all for the prurient interest for excitement and appeal to adults. Children are being taught sexuality beyond the customary limits of candor.

Meanwhile in Arizona:

Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1402 states that indecent exposure is committed whenever a person exposes recklessly either genitals or their anal region or in the case of women – areolas and nipples in front of another individual without considerations about a witness getting either alarmed or offended by the act.

Breast-feeding is, needless to say, excluded from the statute.

As far as the seriousness of the offense is concerned, people who commit indecent exposure in front of individuals aged 15 or younger should expect more serious penalties. Typically, indecent exposure is classified as a misdemeanor but if there are aggravating circumstances, a person may eventually be charged with a Class 3 felony.

On top of the state-wide regulations, Arizona cities may have individual local indecent exposure laws to target such behavior. Downtown Scottsdale, for example, has fines imposed on individuals found guilty of urinating in public. In Bullhead City, a person found guilty of solicitation by indecent exposure faces Class 3 misdemeanor charges.

Keep in mind that indecent exposure is different from engaging in a public sex act. Public sexual indecency is defined in Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1403 and the severity of the sanctions will once again depend on previous offenses and whether the act took place in front of a minor.

So what would be considered indecent exposure? When a grown man walks into a Target woman's bathroom and exposes his genitalia to a minor female child? 

What would be considered indecent exposure? A grown man going into a woman's gym shower and changing area, getting naked in front of women, and then going for a workout?

There are serious concerns and legal questions about the limits of Gender Ideology when it comes to Indecent Exposure and Obscenity, not to mention Women's Rights and sexual privacy rights of other individuals.

In recent court cases, judges have dismissed the legitimate concerns over sexual privacy and the rights of other individuals to push Gender Ideology. These same courts and judges illegitimately place people's "feelings" over established laws pertaining to obscenity, lewd conduct, and indecent exposure. These social justice judges should be investigated for their unethical standards when laws are ignored for political correctness. 

Should belief be used instead of established biological science? Should judges be allowed to redefine the sexes based on psychology, which goes against Title IX?

What are people teaching your children at school when you are at work?

Source: Cornell Law,  AZ Criminal Defense Group  

How Decorum has Morphed into Political Correctness for Some and Emotive Attacks Against Others

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Government / Comedy / News

______________________________

George Carlin, writer, comedian, and actor, was also a great commentator and activist. In this 1999, National Press Club speech, Mr. Carlin shows us how language has become so twisted and perverted that it is a wonder how we even communicate with each other.

Of course, that is the point.

Why would an establishment, liberal or conservative, want the people to be able to communicate with one another? Aren't the people best controlled and divided by a limiting and labeling language?

"George Carlin delivered a humorous speech in which he made fun of Washington politics and the language of politics. He also talked about America's penchant for euphemism and about labeling minorities. After his remarks he answered questions submitted from the audience."

Here is George Carlin's presentation: 

National Press Club, 1999, George Carlin

If over a decade ago, our language had been so changed and mangled by politically correct words, euphemisms, and labels, then how do we return our language to a better time. Not saying: let's insult as many people as possible today! But wouldn't that be a start?

Again if you speak truth to power or just your personal truth, the word police are waiting to write you a derogatory, hate-filled ticket. Take for instance Michael Eric Dyson, his inflammatory response to someone's free speech and beliefs was:

“Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty is part of a majority white supremacist culture that either consciously or unconsciously incubates hatred toward those who are different.”

Here's the video: MSNBC's Now. 

Mr. Dyson, if, what you are saying is somewhat true, then why are you on many cable news shows and host some as well? A culture, that is so divisive and segregative, would not allow such diversity, now would it? I don't believe you are giving credit to the vast majority of people on this planet or in this country.

And, didn't you just incubate hatred toward those who are different? It makes you think about how our discourse has faded into the inaccuracies of someone's personal issues. From the way you spoke, it sounds like you are harboring as much anger, resentment, and supremacy as those individuals you condemn on a national stage.

Just because someone has a religious or personal belief about something or someone does not mean that they are a white supremacist or promote a dominate overbearing culture. The fact that you are subverting the national language into a race war instead of celebrating the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an embarrassment. Isn't that in itself what you are railing against?

Maybe it's people who cry wolf over the smallest of social heterodox that are the problem.

Adults agree to disagree about subjects, but we are not a socialistic, communistic, communitarian culture, nation, or republic; we are a melting pot of every person, language, culture, and religion on this planet. 

To suggest that a reality show personality should lay waste to their belief system to satisfy someone else's hurt feelings is ridiculous. Isn't that how slavery begins? In this instance, slavery of the mind?

As a liberal democrat, I am appalled at the indulgence this nation has taken in this matter. It is nothing more than changing the dialogue from our federal government's corruption and degradation of our rights to he said; she said. Deplorable. Irresponsible. Immature.

The focus of the argument should always go back to the fundamentals of our nation. Is what he said, if you agree or not, his right to say, feel, and live that belief or conviction? According to the First Amendment, yes. Unless of course you are suggesting that the freedom of speech doesn't apply to others but only to your own attribution.

This instigative, emotional word vomit that is taught in schools and colleges needs to come back to Earth. We are not the puppet of the United Nations. We are the United States of America. 

Maybe you need to take a few minutes and listen to George Carlin's speech. 

The United States has its challenges. One is to reign in this divisive behavior that has no more relevance than Federal Reserve notes. It's just one more example on how the establishment wants to create strife where there is none so the people will not come together and set the world straight.

My point of view is that if you threaten the rights of one person, than you threaten the freedom of every person. You can thank my belief system on John F. Kennedy's assertion that America is based on freedom and equality. Again, that philosophy of every [hu]man is created equal and has equal protection under the law would probably make me a white supremacist too. 

Thank you, Michael Eric Dyson, for being apart of the problem and not the solution to the real situations we face as a nation, but by putting a face on the bigotry of mainstream media.

Sources: National Press Club, MSNBC,