Will there be no end to grand juries?

It was fine when the anti-pornography group Operation SouthWind gathered enough signatures on petitions last year to convene a grand jury to investigate local sex shops. Porn stores need monitoring. But now that the group has filed petitions (which the Sedgwick County election office recently certified) to convene another grand jury, it’s getting annoying. After all, the first grand jury resulted in one misdemeanor charge to one store for selling one video that is available on the Internet. Is Operation SouthWind going to keep forcing grand jury investigations at taxpayers’ expense until it gets a decision that it likes (which likely would be one that would get tossed out by the courts as unconstitutional)?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

18 Comments

  1. Posted April 30, 2006 at 2:09 am | Permalink

    Sex sells, even if you’re against it.

  2. writerdog
    Posted April 30, 2006 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    A wise man once said, “Lord protect me from the Rightious!”

  3. XXX
    Posted April 30, 2006 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Might as well get used to it. We’re dealing with fanatics. These are the holier than thou I know what’s best for everybody because I say so crowd.

    They’re the proof that conservatives don’t enjoy sex.

  4. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted April 30, 2006 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I like “jesus, save me from your followers”.

    Except in ks, it would be “jesus, save me from seventy percent of those oh-so-righteous voters”.

  5. Posted April 30, 2006 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Remember when the neo-cons inveighed during the last election cycles that they were against “frivolous lawsuits.”

    When a worker sues an employer for harassment or unsafe workplaces, that’s “frivolous.” When South Dakota tests Roe v Wade and anti-porn file suits in Wichita, that’s “justice.”

  6. raptor
    Posted April 30, 2006 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Who hired Jan Beemer and her band of idiots to determine what is ‘RIGHT’ for me? I totally agree with Phillip..this group is annoying, and has been from their first appearance.

    If you want a vision into scary, attend one of their meetings. They trot out one guy who claims to have been addicted to pornography, and use that as a reason to try to ban all adult bookstores.

    Doesn’t this sound sort of like the reasons behind Prohibition? That didn’t work either.

  7. Darwin'sDisciple
    Posted April 30, 2006 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Let’s see restrictions on teaching evolution, purged reading lists for high schools, a state representative who thinks that women should not have the right to vote, and now no pornography.

    I think I understand why our state is having such rampant population growth.

    And remember, this state is controlled by the party that favors minimal government intrusion. Hmmm…

  8. Posted April 30, 2006 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    DD. Never believe a Republican with a bible in their hands.

  9. XXX
    Posted April 30, 2006 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Ha! Good one, Joe. I agree.

  10. Jed
    Posted May 1, 2006 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Makes me think about the stories my Grandpa told about prohibition- how people who spent Saturday night at the neighborhood speakeasy tried to appear upright and moral on Sunday morning by preaching the evils of John Barleycorn. These Southwind thumpers seem to have viewed an awful lot of “pornographic” videos in order to tell us how evil they are. Makes you wonder……

  11. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted May 1, 2006 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    …like you wonder about phill klein’s obsession with teenage sex?

    We will have an end to the southwind nonsense when people in wichita have enough of it.

    It continues because it reflects the will of the majority? When you stop voting wingnuts into office, this type of taliban jihad will stop.

    Until then… I hear the taliban gaining confidence. After all, 70% of kansans agree with them.

  12. Ben Huie
    Posted May 1, 2006 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    What I find rather amusing is not just that the Righties decry ‘frivolous litigation’ except when they are the ones doing it but that they also decry ’slap-on-the-wrist’ plea bargains until it is one of their own like dopehead Rush.

  13. CrusaderX
    Posted May 1, 2006 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    BH,

    I am a big fan of “I smoked pot, but I didn’t inhale” Clinton. Then again, Clintonisms are a valuable asset since while under oath, one could simply change the meaning of one’s words when faced with an open-ended question. Clinton, a good president, a great lawyer! =)

  14. Shocker'07
    Posted May 1, 2006 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    XXX, I’m thinking conservatives like sex. REALLY like it. After all, they keep talking about it and making election issues out of it.

  15. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted May 3, 2006 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Looks like the wingnuts in wichita have hijacked your judicial system, and grand juries will be their TOOL of choice.

    http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14490162.htm

  16. Damoon
    Posted May 3, 2006 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    I wish they’d put it to a vote, a community should have the right to decide what it will and will not tolerate. I’m sick of seeing women and children exploited and objectified by the porn industry.

  17. ksfarmgrrl
    Posted May 4, 2006 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Frivolous litigation indeed. And tort reform, the darling of the right, was supposed to get rid of nuisance law suits and unclog the judicial system.

    And now this? Seems like tort reform wouldnt help a bit to keep the wingnuts from gumming up the legal system. Just keep injured parties from accessing the system. It will be too clogged with wingnut grand juries to allow anyone with REAL claims their day in court.

    Wingnuts hate the judiciary almost as much as public education. But they sure love those “activist judges” when they are carrying wingnut water.

    Frivolous lawsuits = anything the wingnuts dont like

    Appropritate litigation = any action to get the taliban laws enacted by “activist judges”.

    Activist judges = anyone who disagrees with the wingnut taliban

    GOOD judges = those who want the separation between church and state destroyed. See also wingnuts legislating from the bench.

    Now who is doing the legislating in black robes?

  18. Jed
    Posted May 7, 2006 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Crux,As someone who survived the ’60’s, I don’t doubt Clinton for a minute. Pot smoke is difficult to inhale, even for cigarette smokers. I saw a lot of non-smokers like Clinton who couldn’t inhale.