Re: *** in public is a fine thing which doesn't bother anyone

On May 2, 11:05=A0pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On May 2, 8:20 am, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> <good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>>news:9c3762ad-d9b4-4f0a-8eb4-1e5c8e1f64b8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>> <JS>
> >>> I see no reason to think that law will be changed anytime soon.
> >>> I happen to like the law as it is, and do not plan to take part in
any=

> >>> effort to get it changed. So, I will not be having *** in public.
You =
can
> >>> have *** in public -- I assume by yourself -- if you want, but you
sho=
uld
> >>> expect jail time if you get caught. You can work to get the laws
chang=
ed,
> >>> but I seriously doubt you will get it done.
> >>> </JS>
> >> Well if no one is against me, then it should already be!
=A0Especially
> >> since we all either agree that the current laws are wrong or have no
> >> argument for them.
>
> >> <JS>
> >> We don't all agree, that's the point. You are out in public having
*** =
with
> >> yourself.
>
> >> </JS>
>
> > First of all, I'm not out in public having *** with myself. =A0That is
> > defamation, libel
>
> Since you're not posting under your real name, and no one here knows
> what your real name is, you have been neither defamed nor libeled.
>
> Shut the **** up.


False.  It's still defamation of character and libel, whether there
may or may not be a legal case.