A Curious Eye

A Curious Eye

My name's Ben. I'm a 22 year-old recent grad living in Seattle. I've been told my gayness is only matched by my enthusiasm.
I post my favorite news from all around the web.
Topics you'll see:
Queer - Liberalism - Activism - Student Issues- Public Transportation - Peace - Environmentalism - Politics - Law - Atheism - Vegetarianism - Feminism - Sex Positivity - Philosophy.

freedomtomarry:

Share this image to celebrate the awesome momentum for marriage!

freedomtomarry:

Share this image to celebrate the awesome momentum for marriage!

bingerdinkhumpydunky:

edwardspoonhands:

Committing suicide is a crime in the US not so that we can punish the depressed, but because, if it weren’t, it would be illegal for the police to enter a home to save someone they suspected was about to kill themselves.

There has to be reasonable belief that a crime is currently being committed or is about to be committed for the police to enter private property.

This had confused me for a long time and this explanation makes so much sense!!

(via iammissanna)

It Is Perfectly Legal to Take Secret Photos Up Women's Skirts in Massachusetts

Michael Robertson was arrested in 2010 after he was caught taking sneaky photos and videos up women’s skirts on the Boston subway, a widespread voyeuristic endeavour known as “upskirting.” His defense argued that the act was an expression of free speech, and this week, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court agreed. 

Apparently, if a man goes out of his way to take an oddly angled photo up a woman’s skirt — a skirt that she put there for the very purpose of covering what is underneath it — he’s not doing anything wrong because she’s taken her skirt and its contents to a public space and can’t hold much expectation of privacy. 

Read moreFollow policymic

theatlantic:

Supreme Court Case May Stop States That Still Execute the Mentally Disabled

The justices banned execution of mentally disabled people in 2002. Now they are poised to tell death penalty states that they really meant it.
Read more. [Image: Serge Melki/Flickr]

theatlantic:

Supreme Court Case May Stop States That Still Execute the Mentally Disabled

The justices banned execution of mentally disabled people in 2002. Now they are poised to tell death penalty states that they really meant it.

Read more. [Image: Serge Melki/Flickr]

Court: Drivers can read maps on cellphones

breakingnews:

Associated Press: A California appeals court says it’s legal for drivers to read a map on their hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel.

Thursday’s ruling by the state’s 5th District Court of Appeal reverses the conviction of a Fresno man who was ticketed in January 2012 for looking at a map on his iPhone 4 while stuck in traffic.

That driver, Steven Spriggs, challenged his $165 fine with the appellate court.

Chimpanzee personhood effort fails first legal tests in New York

Judge Rules Unpaid Intern Cannot Bring Sexual Harassment Claim Since She's Not A Paid Employee

breakingnews:

Judge upholds Connecticut’s assault weapons ban 
The Hartford Courant: A federal court in Hartford, Conn., upheld the state’s tough assault weapons ban, saying it is constitutionally valid. 

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello, wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."
The state Legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first grade students and six adults with a now-banned, AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.

Follow updates on this story at Breaking News.
Photo: Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signs a historic gun control bill into law on April 4, 2013. (Michael McAndrews / Hartford Courant)

breakingnews:

Judge upholds Connecticut’s assault weapons ban 

The Hartford Courant: A federal court in Hartford, Conn., upheld the state’s tough assault weapons ban, saying it is constitutionally valid. 

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello, wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

The state Legislature enacted comprehensive restrictions on ownership of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition early last year in the emotionally charged weeks following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Troubled gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first grade students and six adults with a now-banned, AR-15 Bushmaster assault rifle his mother bought.

Follow updates on this story at Breaking News.

Photo: Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signs a historic gun control bill into law on April 4, 2013. (Michael McAndrews / Hartford Courant)

Supreme Court To Decide If Cops Can Search Phones Without A Warrant

theatlantic:

When Judges Believe in ‘Natural Law’

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on at least two cases that weigh constitutional and statutory law against religious or moral beliefs. Both involve challenges to the Obamacare provision that requires for-profit companies to offer health insurance policies that cover contraception. In Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary, etc., a national wood-supply company and its owners assert that they are entitled to an exemption based on their Mennonite owners’ view that contraception “is intrinsic evil and a sin against God to which they are held accountable.” In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. v. Sibelius, Hobby Lobby and its owners argue that they operate under Christian principles and that it would be “immoral” for them to provide contraception coverage.
The court is also likely to hear a third case: In Gilardi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, a court of appeals case decided in November, the court held that the contraception mandate violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the plaintiffs, two Roman Catholic brothers who own a food-processing company. The judge who wrote the opinion, Janice Rogers Brown, has frequently been mentioned as a potential Republican candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to a 2006 New York Times article by David D. Kirkpatrick, Brown “has often argued that judges should look to higher authority than precedent or man made laws in making decisions.” Her opinion in the Gilardi case relies explicitly on “moral” law in interpreting the Constitution and statutes. Forcing the Gilardi brothers to comply with the contraception mandate, she wrote, would be a “compelled affirmation of a repugnant belief.” She said the Affordable Care Act forces the plaintiffs to make a “Hobson’s choice”: Either they refuse to provide contraception coverage and pay a large monetary penalty, “or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong.”
If Judge Brown believes that constitutional and statutory law must yield to a “higher authority,” she isn’t alone.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]

theatlantic:

When Judges Believe in ‘Natural Law’

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on at least two cases that weigh constitutional and statutory law against religious or moral beliefs. Both involve challenges to the Obamacare provision that requires for-profit companies to offer health insurance policies that cover contraception. In Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary, etc., a national wood-supply company and its owners assert that they are entitled to an exemption based on their Mennonite owners’ view that contraception “is intrinsic evil and a sin against God to which they are held accountable.” In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. v. Sibelius, Hobby Lobby and its owners argue that they operate under Christian principles and that it would be “immoral” for them to provide contraception coverage.

The court is also likely to hear a third case: In Gilardi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, a court of appeals case decided in November, the court held that the contraception mandate violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the plaintiffs, two Roman Catholic brothers who own a food-processing company. The judge who wrote the opinion, Janice Rogers Brown, has frequently been mentioned as a potential Republican candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to a 2006 New York Times article by David D. Kirkpatrick, Brown “has often argued that judges should look to higher authority than precedent or man made laws in making decisions.” Her opinion in the Gilardi case relies explicitly on “moral” law in interpreting the Constitution and statutes. Forcing the Gilardi brothers to comply with the contraception mandate, she wrote, would be a “compelled affirmation of a repugnant belief.” She said the Affordable Care Act forces the plaintiffs to make a “Hobson’s choice”: Either they refuse to provide contraception coverage and pay a large monetary penalty, “or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong.”

If Judge Brown believes that constitutional and statutory law must yield to a “higher authority,” she isn’t alone.

Read more. [Image: Reuters]

Oklahoma considers banning ALL marriages to avoid marriage equality

gaywrites:

In what can only be described as a mid-sized temper tantrum, lawmakers in Oklahoma are considering ending the institution of marriage in the state as a way to avoid having to eventually legalize marriage equality. 

Rep. Mike Turner has openly said that this move would be an attempt to prevent same-sex marriages from happening while still being constitutional (hmm?). He thinks it’s a “realistic opportunity,” especially now that other conservatives are up in arms over a judge ruling Oklahoma’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. 

"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Kiesel says prohibiting all marriage is new territory. In fact, the ACLU was unable to find an example of where a state has ever tried to ban all marriage. Kiesel believes the entire idea just boils down to politics.

"Moving forward I think we’ll see less efforts like this," Kiesel said.

Turner admits his idea makes a lot of people uncomfortable. He also says, “I accept that.” Turner plans to wait until the federal appeals process plays out. The fight over Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage will now head to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. 

If you can’t beat ‘em…screw everyone else over, too? This is so ridiculous and petty. Just stop.