NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering who knew anything of this legislation making its way through congress. The conservative fellows at my work are worried that their pastors will go to jail just for talking about how the Bibble says God doesn't want the gays to have the gay sex.

I have a hard time believing that it will make it illegal to express an opinion. I tried to search for the bills wording but I suck at it apparently, plus I probably wouldn't understand it if I was able to find it.

Someone help me not be made of fail right now. I can't brain today :(

I was wondering who knew anything of this legislation making its way through congress. The conservative fellows at my work are worried that their pastors will go to jail just for talking about how the Bibble says God doesn't want the gays to have the gay sex.

I have a hard time believing that it will make it illegal to express an opinion. I tried to search for the bills wording but I suck at it apparently, plus I probably wouldn't understand it if I was able to find it.

Someone help me not be made of fail right now. I can't brain today :(

It's a stretch, because if it did, the First Amendment would nullify the law.

In other countries, apparently, such laws ARE used to prevent people from speaking about their religion or religious objections to homosexuality.

The only problem I have with hate crime laws is that they don't pass the "equal protection" test for me.

It makes some groups "more protected" than others.

So I think that sort of thing is unconstitutional on that basis.

Murder is already murder. Who cares if someone was deriding your race, sexual orientation,etc. while they were hacking you to pieces? Does it make the murder somehow more outrageous? If the victim were not a member of a protected class, would that somehow make the murder less outrageous?

It's a stretch, because if it did, the First Amendment would nullify the law.

In other countries, apparently, such laws ARE used to prevent people from speaking about their religion or religious objections to homosexuality.

"Other countries" such as...?

The Hate Crimes Bill seems to simply add gender and sexual orientation to existing hate crime legislation. News Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050300775.html)
The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

ENDA is a similar bill that prohibits employer discrimination against people on those same grounds, although there is an exemption for religious organizations written in as well. Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act) PDF of ENDA text (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2015ih.txt.pdf)

It's a stretch, because if it did, the First Amendment would nullify the law.

In other countries, apparently, such laws ARE used to prevent people from speaking about their religion or religious objections to homosexuality.

The only problem I have with hate crime laws is that they don't pass the "equal protection" test for me.

It makes some groups "more protected" than others.

So I think that sort of thing is unconstitutional on that basis.

Murder is already murder. Who cares if someone was deriding your race, sexual orientation,etc. while they were hacking you to pieces? Does it make the murder somehow more outrageous? If the victim were not a member of a protected class, would that somehow make the murder less outrageous?

Have you seen the wording of this bill?

How does it make someone more protected? Wouldnt it just make punishment harsher for those that attack someone because they are a minority of one type or another? I

"Other countries" such as...?

I think something happened in Sweden where a pastor was jailed for preaching against homosexual behavior

"Other countries" such as...?

The US, for one...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/05/07/your_grandmother_could_be_next_the_hate_crimes_bills

In fact, in Philadelphia in 2004 such an incident occurred during a protest rally at a gay convention. A 75-year old grandmother of three was arrested, jailed, and charged under existing state hate crimes law for attempting to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ironically, no one was hurt, wounded, or even intimidated by her actions.

The charges were later dropped.

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to be gay, and a right to speak their minds. I don't see anything as hate speech, and view all hate speech laws as violations of the First Amendment.

Have you seen the wording of this bill?

How does it make someone more protected? Wouldnt it just make punishment harsher for those that attack someone because they are a minority of one type or another? I


Why should someone be punished "more" for attacking a particular protected class of citizens?

That implies more deterrence, and more protection. Therefore, it violates the equal protection clause.

I think the Hate Crimes Bill is very very very necessary. I say this having been violently gay bashed and the guys who did it got off practically scott-free. With adequate hate crime legislation those guys would be in prison getting gang banged by a bunch of skinheads. =/

The US, for one...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/05/07/your_grandmother_could_be_next_the_hate_crimes_bills

Other countries, DK, other countries.

The charges were later dropped.

It would be nice to know what she actually said.

Other countries, DK, other countries.

It would be nice to know what she actually said.


There's the Swedish example.

Also, if saying that homosexuality is bad is a hate crime, then quoting Leviticus should do it.

There's the Swedish example.

I'm sorry, but Sumumba saying "I think something happened in Sweden..." isn't really an example.

Also, if saying that homosexuality is bad is a hate crime, then quoting Leviticus should do it.

Depends whether or not you take it to be referring to homosexuality.

The Hate Crimes Bill seems to simply add gender and sexual orientation to existing hate crime legislation. News Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050300775.html)


ENDA is a similar bill that prohibits employer discrimination against people on those same grounds, although there is an exemption for religious organizations written in as well. Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act) PDF of ENDA text (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2015ih.txt.pdf)

Thanks!

So its about violent acts then, eh? Sounds reasonable to me.

I was wondering who knew anything of this legislation making its way through congress. The conservative fellows at my work are worried that their pastors will go to jail just for talking about how the Bibble says God doesn't want the gays to have the gay sex.

Their pastors are not going to go to jail.

I'm sorry, but Sumumba saying "I think something happened in Sweden..." isn't really an example.

Depends whether or not you take it to be referring to homosexuality.

There's an interesting double standard on links here, so I will deliberately not provide you with one.

Sorry, I don't buy the idea of hate speech in the US. It's in our Constitution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4477502.stm
Pastor Ake Green was arrested for hate speech laws but was acquitted.

Thanks!

So its about violent acts then, eh? Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't know that much about hate crimes laws, but that seems to be it. Of course, this doesn't replace state laws dealing with the same issues that may be broader in scope and affect speech. The intent behind this particular legislation appears to be covering the states that don't have those laws, so that people who believe their sexual orientation was a part of discrimination have legal recourse through federal law.

I was wondering who knew anything of this legislation making its way through congress. The conservative fellows at my work are worried that their pastors will go to jail just for talking about how the Bibble says God doesn't want the gays to have the gay sex.

I have a hard time believing that it will make it illegal to express an opinion. I tried to search for the bills wording but I suck at it apparently, plus I probably wouldn't understand it if I was able to find it.

Someone help me not be made of fail right now. I can't brain today :(

The law has passed the House and is moving on the the Senate. Bush has promised a veto. Essentially, it strengthens federal involvement in hate crimes and sets aside money to help local law enforcement prosecute them.

The idea that it would have any effect at all on speech is a lie propagated by opponents of the bill.

The only problem I have with hate crime laws is that they don't pass the "equal protection" test for me.

It makes some groups "more protected" than others.

No, it doesn't. A hate crime law does not make any group more protected than any other group. It simply gives another guideline in sentencing based on the motive of the criminal.

For instance, suppose I attack a man because he happens to be (or appears to be) Latino. I don't know him, I just hate all Latino people and want to attack someone who is Latino. This is a hate crime because my motivation was that I thought he belonged to a particular ethnic group. I am a danger to all Latinos - not just him.

Suppose I attack a man because he slept with my spouse. He happens to be a Latino man, is gay, and is Catholic. This is not a hate crime, because it has nothing to do with any group he belongs to. The motivation is a specific action taken by that man. I am a danger to that man, but not to all Latinos, homosexuals, or Catholics.

The question here is the motivation, not the person. The exact same man could be the victim in both crimes. He gains no extra protection. Instead, criminals whose motivations make them a danger to all of a particular group are punished accordingly.

Murder is already murder. Who cares if someone was deriding your race, sexual orientation,etc. while they were hacking you to pieces? Does it make the murder somehow more outrageous? If the victim were not a member of a protected class, would that somehow make the murder less outrageous?

If you murder someone because of their race, sexual orientation, etc., you are a danger to ALL people of that race, sexual orientation, etc.

Meanwhile, it is impossible to "not be a member of a protected class" under hate crime legislation. All people who have any ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc. (in other words, all people) are equally protected by it.

Have you seen the wording of this bill?

How does it make someone more protected? Wouldnt it just make punishment harsher for those that attack someone because they are a minority of one type or another?

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with being a minority. It simply has to do with the basis for the crime. If someone is attacked because they happen to have white skin, that is a hate crime. If someone is attacked for being heterosexual, that is a hate crime. If someone is attacked because they are Christian, that is a hate crime.

In the end, hate crime legislation has little to do with the victim. The victim could be anyone. It has to do with the motivation behind the crime.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=s456is.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/110_cong_bills

Here's ye beastie itself.

I doubt your coworkers fears are well founded.

I was wondering who knew anything of this legislation making its way through congress. The conservative fellows at my work are worried that their pastors will go to jail just for talking about how the Bibble says God doesn't want the gays to have the gay sex.

I have a hard time believing that it will make it illegal to express an opinion. I tried to search for the bills wording but I suck at it apparently, plus I probably wouldn't understand it if I was able to find it.

Someone help me not be made of fail right now. I can't brain today :(

Damn the house for passing this legislation. THere is nothing worthy in this legislation. All they are doing is legislating speech. Damn it. I am having my rights trampled on with this passage.

I don't know that much about hate crimes laws, but that seems to be it. Of course, this doesn't replace state laws dealing with the same issues that may be broader in scope and affect speech. The intent behind this particular legislation appears to be covering the states that don't have those laws, so that people who believe their sexual orientation was a part of discrimination have legal recourse through federal law.


That is somethign else I was wondering (Federal vs. State). You readed my mind! :eek:

The law has passed the House and is moving on the the Senate. Bush has promised a veto. Essentially, it strengthens federal involvement in hate crimes and sets aside money to help local law enforcement prosecute them.

Good. I am glad that bush is going to veto this legislation that tramples my 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with being a minority. It simply has to do with the basis for the crime. If someone is attacked because they happen to have white skin, that is a hate crime. If someone is attacked for being heterosexual, that is a hate crime. If someone is attacked because they are Christian, that is a hate crime.

In the end, hate crime legislation has little to do with the victim. The victim could be anyone. It has to do with the motivation behind the crime.

But Heterosexuals (like muah) are not protected by this legislation, nor any for that matter.

Good. I am glad that bush is going to veto this legislation that tramples my 1st amendment rights.

Which part of it? What is the exact wording of the part trampling your rights?

There's an interesting double standard on links here, so I will deliberately not provide you with one.

What's the "interesting double standard"?

It's a stretch, because if it did, the First Amendment would nullify the law.

In other countries, apparently, such laws ARE used to prevent people from speaking about their religion or religious objections to homosexuality.

The only problem I have with hate crime laws is that they don't pass the "equal protection" test for me.

It makes some groups "more protected" than others.

So I think that sort of thing is unconstitutional on that basis.

Only if you have absolutely no understanding about how the law works. The concept that ones motivation might make a crime more serious is unconstitutional is to say that the difference between murder and manslaughter is unconstitutional.

Which is to say, that is stupid.

But Heterosexuals (like muah) are not protected by this legislation, nor any for that matter.

Ahhh, back with your craptastic legal analysis as ever huh? You obviously have no idea how these laws work.

But Heterosexuals (like muah) are not protected by this legislation, nor any for that matter.
Unless heterosexuality is no longer a sexual orientation, then it is protected as well.

Damn the house for passing this legislation. THere is nothing worthy in this legislation. All they are doing is legislating speech. Damn it. I am having my rights trampled on with this passage.

This bill has nothing at all to do with speech. Try again.

Good. I am glad that bush is going to veto this legislation that tramples my 1st amendment rights.

Your 1st Amendment rights include committing crimes against someone because of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc?

But Heterosexuals (like muah) are not protected by this legislation, nor any for that matter.

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, is it not? As such, heterosexuals are just as protected by this legislation as homosexuals or bisexuals or asexuals.

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with being a minority. It simply has to do with the basis for the crime. If someone is attacked because they happen to have white skin, that is a hate crime. If someone is attacked for being heterosexual, that is a hate crime. If someone is attacked because they are Christian, that is a hate crime.

In the end, hate crime legislation has little to do with the victim. The victim could be anyone. It has to do with the motivation behind the crime.

Ah, that is much clearer. Sounds like equal protection for all to me.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=s456is.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/110_cong_bills

Here's ye beastie itself.

I doubt your coworkers fears are well founded.

Gah! I knew I'd be better off not tryign to read it. :P

Damn the house for passing this legislation. THere is nothing worthy in this legislation. All they are doing is legislating speech. Damn it. I am having my rights trampled on with this passage.


How so? What part of the bill tramples on your rights to talk shit about the gays?

That is the wrong bill, text can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Of note, I would like to point out this particular piece of text:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution

That is the wrong bill, text can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Of note, I would like to point out this particular piece of text:

Erp...yeah...I copied the wrong link. *d'oh*

and frankly speaking, commenting about what a law says having never actually READ THE LAW is the height of idiocy.

But that's really par for the course for a few of our posters.

Damn the house for passing this legislation. THere is nothing worthy in this legislation. All they are doing is legislating speech. Damn it. I am having my rights trampled on with this passage.

Now if you could actually prove that....

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110U6jucz::

There's the bill. Good luck.

That is the wrong bill, text can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Of note, I would like to point out this particular piece of text:

Haha, something seemed wrong about it.

Haha, something seemed wrong about it.

Yeah, I gave you a link to a gang violence bill...classy.

Yeah, I gave you a link to a gang violence bill...classy.

congress has not been known for their overly descriptive titles but I knew something was off with that

The conservative fellows at my work are worried that their pastors will go to jail just for talking about how the Bibble says God doesn't want the gays to have the gay sex.



As a straight man, I can safely say I'm only in it for the hetero sex....wouldnt it just likewise take the fun of the gay to take away the gay sex?

If you murder someone because of their race, sexual orientation, etc., you are a danger to ALL people of that race, sexual orientation, etc.

If you commit murder, it's murder. I feel that if you're willing to murder, you'll be fine with killing anyone again.

As a straight man, I can safely say I'm only in it for the hetero sex....wouldnt it just likewise take the fun of the gay to take away the gay sex?

I'm sure it would but I'm not sure where you are headed with this. :confused:

Remember, I can't brain today.

If you commit murder, it's murder. I feel that if you're willing to murder, you'll be fine with killing anyone again.

That's an interesting theory, but it doesn't actually fit with reality.

That's an interesting theory, but it doesn't actually fit with reality.

So nothing new today, eh? ;)

So nothing new today, eh? ;)

hehe, quite. Just another day on NSG.

The US, for one...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/05/07/your_grandmother_could_be_next_the_hate_crimes_bills

The charges were later dropped.

1. I'd love for you to post more information about this because a three-sentence anecdote from a hysterical online op-ed piece isn't very informative.

2. Even your goofy source doesn't claim that the hate crime laws actually directly outlaw some speech. Instead it makes the weak argument that it would "embolden this kind of law enforcement."

3. Your goofy source claims that no one can point to anything in the law that would prevent Christians from being persecuted under it for alleged hate speech. That is either a lie or an admission of willful ignorance.

First, the law only creates a crime where the perpetrator "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person" (and commits other elements of the crime).

Second, as Arthais has noted, the law has a specific exemption for speech and the free exercise of religion.

4. Having considered the lie/willful ignorance describe under #3, forgive me for not believing your source's anecdote about the grandmother.

As far as I'm concerned, people have a right to be gay, and a right to speak their minds. I don't see anything as hate speech, and view all hate speech laws as violations of the First Amendment.

Good thing no one is talking about hate speech laws here. Merely laws against violent crimes committed based on hate (racism, sexism, etc) and employment discrimination.

If you commit murder, it's murder. I feel that if you're willing to murder, you'll be fine with killing anyone again.

Gee, this must be why we treat all homicides the same under existing statutes and common law.

Oh, snap, we don't.

Well, we must treat all cases of murder the same then.

Oh, snap, we don't do that either.

1. I'd love for you to post more information about this because a three-sentence anecdote from a hysterical online op-ed piece isn't very informative.

2. Even your goofy source doesn't claim that the hate crime laws actually directly outlaw some speech. Instead it makes the weak argument that it would "embolden this kind of law enforcement."

3. Your goofy source claims that no one can point to anything in the law that would prevent Christians from being persecuted under it for alleged hate speech. That is either a lie or an admission of willful ignorance.

First, the law only creates a crime where the perpetrator "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person" (and commits other elements of the crime).

Second, as Arthais has noted, the law has a specific exemption for speech and the free exercise of religion.

4. Having considered the lie/willful ignorance describe under #3, forgive me for not believing your source's anecdote about the grandmother.



Good thing no one is talking about hate speech laws here. Merely laws against violent crimes committed based on hate (racism, sexism, etc) and employment discrimination.

let's be honest with ourselves TCT, did we honestly expect any reasoned and fair legal analysis from from Online Deep Observer, or whatever he's calling himself now?

1. I'd love for you to post more information about this because a three-sentence anecdote from a hysterical online op-ed piece isn't very informative.

2. Even your goofy source doesn't claim that the hate crime laws actually directly outlaw some speech. Instead it makes the weak argument that it would "embolden this kind of law enforcement."

3. Your goofy source claims that no one can point to anything in the law that would prevent Christians from being persecuted under it for alleged hate speech. That is either a lie or an admission of willful ignorance.

First, the law only creates a crime where the perpetrator "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person" (and commits other elements of the crime).

Second, as Arthais has noted, the law has a specific exemption for speech and the free exercise of religion.

4. Having considered the lie/willful ignorance describe under #3, forgive me for not believing your source's anecdote about the grandmother.



Good thing no one is talking about hate speech laws here. Merely laws against violent crimes committed based on hate (racism, sexism, etc) and employment discrimination.


<3

Gee, this must be why we treat all homicides the same under existing statutes and common law.

Oh, snap, we don't.

Well, we must treat all cases of murder the same then.

Oh, snap, we don't do that either.

beat you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12624299&postcount=26)

beat you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12624299&postcount=26)Yeah but she said it in a more snarky way that helped get her point across.

beat you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12624299&postcount=26)

Of course you did. You do that quite often. You should stop being so good so I can look better.

Yeah but she said it in a more snarky way that helped get her point across.

:D I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

(But, for the record, I'm a male.)

Of course you did. You do that quite often. You should stop being so good so I can look better.

S'alright, you tend to end up with the credit anyway, heh.

I suppose I'm just more of a post whore...

what kind of law do you do, anyway?

what kind of law do you do, anyway?

Currently, I don't do any. I'm not working.

Most recently, I was a IP litigator for several years (with a little federal criminal on the side). Before that I was a clerk and before that I did some criminal law and social security disability.

How about you?

Currently, I don't do any. I'm not working.

Most recently, I was a IP litigator for several years. Before that I was a clerk and before that I did some criminal law and social security disability.

How about you?

Did you do the patent bar or just general trademark/copyright stuff?

Largely I do banking regs, a lot of UCC art. 9 secured transactions stuff. Also a smattering of IP and a bit of for profit and not for profit incorporation and setup.

On the side I do a bit of immigration work, a lot of asylum claims from africa.

Did you do the patent bar or just general trademark/copyright stuff?

Neither really. I did primarily patent litigation. I didn't do patent prosecution, just litigating over infringement, etc.

Largely I do banking regs, a lot of UCC art. 9 secured transactions stuff. Also a smattering of IP and a bit of for profit and not for profit incorporation and setup.

Cool.

On the side I do a bit of immigration work, a lot of asylum claims from africa.

Very cool. Worthy stuff, and difficult. Good for you.

Currently, I don't do any. I'm not working.

Most recently, I was a IP litigator for several years (with a little federal criminal on the side). Before that I was a clerk and before that I did some criminal law and social security disability.

How about you?

Hmmm. I could have sworn you once told us you did civil rights cases. Must have just been the general idea I got.

Hmmm. I could have sworn you once told us you did civil rights cases. Must have just been the general idea I got.

:D No, you are right. I have said that. And it is true.

I've worked on several civil rights cases (both as a clerk and as a litigator), but they've never been my main practice.

(Just to be clear: by civil rights cases, I mean section 1983 claims, sexual harassment cases, gender discrimination cases, racial discrimination cases, etc.)

I apologize if I ever gave you the wrong impression that civil rights was my primary practice. I have done many types of litigation, but patent litigation was the staple of my most recent practice.

:D No, you are right. I have said that. And it is true.

I've worked on several civil rights cases (both as a clerk and as a litigator),

Who did you clerk for? After lawschool I clerked for a judge on the 1st cir court of appeals

:D No, you are right. I have said that. And it is true.

I've worked on several civil rights cases (both as a clerk and as a litigator), but they've never been my main practice.

(Just to be clear: by civil rights cases, I mean section 1983 claims, sexual harassment cases, gender discrimination cases, racial discrimination cases, etc.)

I apologize if I ever gave you the wrong impression that civil rights was my primary practice. I have done many types of litigation, but patent litigation was the staple of my most recent practice.

You probably mentioned a case or two and, because you seem so passionate about civil rights law, I assumed it was your main practice. I've had this impression of you as being the long-haired lawyer with an earring and a bad attitude towards the authorities. But it probably isn't anything specific that you said that gave me that impression - I have an active imagination. =)

Who did you clerk for? After lawschool I clerked for a judge on the 1st cir court of appeals

Really? Awesome. No wonder you're so sharp.

As it happens, I clerked for a judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals.

As it happens, I clerked for a judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals.

bloody californians....working for the most overturned circuit in the country huh? hehe

One of these days I expect to read a SCOTUS opinion "this case comes to us from the 9th circuit...but we review it for other reasons too"

You probably mentioned a case or two and, because you seem so passionate about civil rights law, I assumed it was your main practice. I've had this impression of you as being the long-haired lawyer with an earring and a bad attitude towards the authorities. But it probably isn't anything specific that you said that gave me that impression - I have an active imagination. =)

I do think I bragged once early on in my visits to NSG that I'd done civil rights cases. I think I was arguing with you and got so frustrated that I said something like "I've worked on civil rights cases, what have you done?" Pretty stupid of me.

Anyway, if it helps I don't have long hair, but I have a nose ring.

(I realize I've now given enough personal information that anyone that knows me IRL would easily identify me. Que sera sera.)

I do think I bragged once early on in my visits to NSG that I'd done civil rights cases. I think I was arguing with you and got so frustrated that I said something like "I've worked on civil rights cases, what have you done?" Pretty stupid of me.

Anyway, if it helps I don't have long hair, but I have a nose ring.

(I realize I've now given enough personal information that anyone that knows me IRL would easily identify me. Que sera sera.)

Hehe. Yeah, I realized that about myself quite a while ago. Hence the reason I don't worry about posting pictures and the like anymore. =)

*Lawyers up*