Folsom Street Fair - World Commentary

[CocoLoco]

Knowingly creating a less safe environment is the opposite of the quote you made. Can the safety of a situation be affected by words alone?

 

[jdhu]

Knowingly creating a less safe environment is the opposite of the quote you made. Can the safety of a situation be affected by words alone?

Um, no? What is the point and relevance?

OK, I think I get where you are going.

So...if you troll and "create" a less-safe environment because people respond.....(what follows)? This is analogous to the felony-murder rule, in a sense.

Of course, I'd argue that the people actually engaging and responding in violence, "created" the less-safe situation.

 

[MysterYvil]

Does anybody know if there are warnings about the graphic nature of some of the activities that occur are posted around the boundaries of the fair, so that parents and people who might be offended by it are well warned before confronting the realities of it first hand?

For those who posted about it, I thought they did close off the area?

Didn't go to gawk at the spectacle this year, but I kinda remember some sort of checkpoint where they were taking donations and backpack inspections last time around.

The physical boundaries of Folsom Street Fair are clearly delineated and monitored.

I can't speak for the most recent one but 2002-2010 there were not only signs but active gate monitors to let people know what they might see. No backpack inspections back then, but they did turn away obviously wasted people.

FSF has been going on for decades. Random people wandering in and being offended is like people not expecting bad traffic on The Embarcadero on a weekend day; negligent or purposely indignant.

 

[CocoLoco]

Um, no? What is the point and relevance?

OK, I think I get where you are going.

So...if you troll and "create" a less-safe environment because people respond.....(what follows)? This is analogous to the felony-murder rule, in a sense.

Of course, I'd argue that the people actually engaging and responding in violence, "created" the less-safe situation.

The article quoted says: and pursuing and obtaining safety.
If there is any evidence that was not being done and if there is evidence that the opposite was true what protection should the person have? Of course. There are still laws that prohibit physical violence. Again, those laws aren't there to protect an individual's rights. Those laws are there to define the boundary that when crossed leads to loss of rights for doing so.

 

[jdhu]

The article quoted says: and pursuing and obtaining safety.
If there is any evidence that was not being done and if there is evidence that the opposite was true what protection should the person have? Of course. There are still laws that prohibit physical violence. Again, those laws aren't there to protect an individual's rights. Those laws are there to define the boundary that when crossed leads to loss of rights for doing so.

Hm, interesting. So, criminal laws prohibit behavior, but have nothing to do with the rights of any person.

CA Constitution do provide inalienable rights to every person, including the right to pursue and obtain safety. However, if a troll purposely places himself in danger, then he/she is not pursuing or obtaining safety? In other words, he/she has forfeit the right? Interesting!

This is getting into the weeds, but Section 1 does say "inalienable" right. So, these rights cannot be taken away or given away. So, even if a troll has no right under criminal statute, the CA Constitution should provide the inalienable right to (pursue and) OBTAIN safety. Right?

Interesting stuff, definitely out in the weeds.

 

[Bay Arean]

Ever since that sensational video years and years ago that was transmitted to religious sites showin the fair, which oddly enough, was my first and only exposure to the event, I have always wondered whether a self-proclaimed "Religious Justice Warrior" would go nukular at that event. I remember one of the pics showed some fairly graphic act while people pushed a baby carriage by it. It had an effect all across 'merica whether "ya like it or not (Newsom voice)."

 

[Hooli]

NIMBH

Not in my butthole?

Only if you're a surfer.

 

[CocoLoco]

Hm, interesting. So, criminal laws prohibit behavior, but have nothing to do with the rights of any person.

CA Constitution do provide inalienable rights to every person, including the right to pursue and obtain safety. However, if a troll purposely places himself in danger, then he/she is not pursuing or obtaining safety? In other words, he/she has forfeit the right? Interesting!

This is getting into the weeds, but Section 1 does say "inalienable" right. So, these rights cannot be taken away or given away. So, even if a troll has no right under criminal statute, the CA Constitution should provide the inalienable right to (pursue and) OBTAIN safety. Right?

Interesting stuff, definitely out in the weeds.

something something aren't in pursuit of obtaining safety. Or would you suggest otherwise? something legal consequences crossing the established boundaries are void something we allow people to pursue danger while still being protected something laws only protect tangentially something something I just came

Weeds. Weeds are good.

 

[jdhu]

something something aren't in pursuit of obtaining safety. Or would you suggest otherwise? something legal consequences crossing the established boundaries are void something we allow people to pursue danger while still being protected something laws only protect tangentially something something I just came

Weeds. Weeds are good.

Essentially, a troll has waived (although it's inalienable) the right to pursue and obtain safety?

What is the purpose of "inalienable?"

Anyway, it comes back to whether the troll causes the danger (or pursues it, I suppose), or whether it's those who actually cause violence. I'm glad you got a release, lol.

 

[CocoLoco]

The laws establishing the boundaries defining acceptable behavior remain in effect regardless of whether or not a person is creating a hostile environment. That doesn't mean they are protected from violence it just means a person who acts violently can be held accountable. It gets a little dicey and I'd suggest that there are times when a person does give up their right to safety if they are pursuing the opposite. At least that's the way I'd interpret no criminal charges for instances ruled consensual combat.

 

[postcholo]

Ah yes, the Folsom street fair. Got stuck in traffic near Folsom street during the fair one year. As we waited for fair attendees to cross the street, had to explain to my then 6 year old son that some men like seeing other men's hairy asses sticking out of their chaps. He was quite amused by this notion.

One of those "San Francisco parent" issues. arty

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Does anybody know if there are warnings about the graphic nature of some of the activities that occur are posted around the boundaries of the fair, so that parents and people who might be offended by it are well warned before confronting the realities of it first hand?

I think there are, on the temporary metal barriers on the entrance streets around the Folsom St.F. center

a few years ago, i was driving on 8th Street, going toward the freeway on-ramp, thus toward the Folsom St. fair ... my mom and elderly aunts were my passengers... we saw a middle-aged man in leather shorts obviously on his way to Folsom St. with a hole around his butt, enough to see the hair around this hole. we were laughing our heads off.

not everyone pays attention to the dates of recurring events. it pays to have an open mind ... and also personal awareness that if you are easily offended by potential behavior you might anticipate, to have you and your family steer clear of the area when it takes place ...

Ah yes, the Folsom street fair. Got stuck in traffic near Folsom street during the fair one year. As we waited for fair attendees to cross the street, had to explain to my then 6 year old son that some men like seeing other men's hairy asses sticking out of their chaps. He was quite amused by this notion.

One of those "San Francisco parent" issues. arty

.. a bit easily avoided.

But I thought you guys should know, you can possibly still see such display of rear (non)attire each Saturday evening at the eye of the Castro, near Harveys on 18th / Castro.. take it as a PSA too, and/or Tourist Info!

 

[Removed 3]

thx for the PSA, Quentin!

 

[Karbon]

Well...at least it's not Florida.

 

[Brokenlink]

"eye of the Castro"

 

[Eldritch]

Man, just wait till the Article Guy sees Dore Fair.

 

[MysterYvil]

Man, just wait till the Article Guy sees Dore Fair.

Up your alley!

Yeah, they've been around so long and are so short neither should need a PSA. But some people make a living of being "surprised."

 

[UDRider]

Lol. Article from UK paper. Almost all comments from US fly over states spewing bunch of hate.

 

[Climber]

Lol. Article from UK paper. Almost all comments from US fly over states spewing bunch of hate.

Of course. The rest of the states Love to Hate California!

Didn't you know that it's just a bunch of queers and surfer dudes out here? It's the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, California is dragging down the nation with all of the sins committed out here, that is the reason for all of the hurricanes on the East coast and the droughts in Texas!

 

[postcholo]

take it as a PSA too, and/or Tourist Info!

thanks for the info , i was only born, raised and have lived in san francisco for about 50 yrs. like the other dude said, not all of us keep track of dates that really don't concern us.