It's time, once again, to marvel at some idiots who don't know how to handle the world:

Cry-Baby #1: HB Shea

Screencap via Google Maps

The incident: A man was unhappy with the service in a post office.

The appropriate response: I always hear ads on podcasts for this thing called Stamps.com. I'm not really sure what it is because I sort of zone out during the ads, but I think it removes the need for post offices? Maybe use that instead.

The actual response: He allegedly threatened an employee with a gun.

Earlier this month, 90-year-old HB Shea (pictured above) was at a post office in Boca Raton, Florida. According to a report on Palm Beach Post, HB asked an employee at the post office to fill out a form for him. The employee declined, and HB shouted at him before storming out of the building.

He allegedly returned a few minutes later, pulled out a handgun, slammed it on the counter, and told the employee he was going to "blow his head off."

Post office staff called police, who came and arrested HB. He was taken to a nearby medical center for an evaluation, before being taken to the county jail on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The Smoking Gun reports that he's also likely to be charged with a felony related to taking a firearm into a postal facility.

Cry-Baby #2: Allen Richards and Erin Brooke Lawson

Screencap via Google Maps

The incident: A neighbor called the cops on a couple because they were having sex too loudly.

The appropriate response: Being a bit quieter. Talking to your neighbor and asking them to let you know if there's a problem next time, rather than calling the police.

The actual response: They allegedly attacked the neighbor with a rake and a stick.

Fifty-seven-year-old Mark Galin lives in an apartment building in Rogersville, Tennessee. According to a report on the Smoking Gun, Mark called police twice on Tuesday of last week to complain that his neighbors, Allen Richards, 33, and his girlfriend, Erin Brooke Lawson, 32, were making too much noise. The first time because they were having loud sex, the second time because they were arguing. My initial instinct is that there are better ways of addressing this problem than calling the police, but what Allen and Erin did next suggests Mark probably made the right move.

Officers from Hawkins County Sheriff's Office reportedly visited the building on both occasions and spoke with the couple. According to a police report filed later that night, once the officers left the building for the second time, Erin and Allen went next door to Mark's apartment. They then attacked him in his doorway.

Mark told police that Erin beat him with the rake until the handle broke, then used the broken handle to stab him. As she did this, Mark says Allen beat him with a stick.

After the alleged attack, Mark called police again, who came and arrested the couple. They were both charged with aggravated assault. Erin received an additional charge for allegedly attacking Allen with the same stick that he'd supposedly used in the attack on the neighbor.

Who here is the bigger cry-baby? Let us know in this poll down here:

Previously: A woman who allegedly pepper sprayed a bunch of people because a restaurant fucked up her burrito vs. a cop who humiliated a marine because he thought he wasn't really a marine

Winner: The marine-humiliating cop!!!

Follow Jamie Lee Curtis Taete on Twitter.

Image via Flickr user diacimages.

This article originally appeared on VICE Australia.

Last month the Australian government, with the support of the opposition, passed the Border Force Protection Act through both houses of Parliament. It will come into effect on July 1.

If the act defines you as an "entrusted person," you might be facing jail for up to two years if you reveal anything about what happens in Australia's immigration detention centers to anybody else.

An "entrusted person" is anyone working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, so that's doctors, nurses, psychologists, teachers, counsellors, security staff, maintenance workers, or anyone who has signed a government contract.

This puts medical professionals and those who work with children on Nauru or Manus Island in bizarre circumstances. Outside of detention centers, they're legally obligated to report child abuse. As of July 1, they can't do the same with abuse witnessed on the inside.

Refugee advocates and human rights lawyers say the legislation is a veiled attempt to silence whistleblowers from revealing human rights violations inside Australia's detention centers. And the mounting evidence of such violations makes this legislation all the more disturbing.

In October last year, Australia's Immigration Department ordered ten workers from Save The Children to leave Nauru's detention center after they alleged sexual abuse against women and children.

The ensuing independent Moss Review looked at both the allegations of sexual abuse, as well as claims from then Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, that Save the Children's workers coached seekers to make false claims. It found evidence of the rape and sexual assault of minors and women as well as guards trading marijuana for sexual favors. There was no evidence of collusion between asylum seekers and advocates to make false claims. The findings of the review are subject to a senate enquiry which is due to report on July 31.

Similarly, February's Australian Human Rights Commission's (AHRC) report on children in detention found there were 233 recorded assaults involving children with 33 incidents of sexual assault between January 2013 and March 2014.

The AHRC report largely drew from interviews and testimony from staff who worked at detention centers. If the Border Force Act were in place when the AHRC was investigating, those who spoke out would've risked potential imprisonment.

Greg Barnes is a barrister and national president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance. He told VICE that the legislation prevents someone's ethical and moral duty to report abuse.

"It's ironic at the same time we have a royal commission into institutionalized sexual abuse we have a government supported by the Labor party, which is deliberately setting about to prevent disclosure of serious criminal abuse," he said.

Mr. Barnes says the law is aimed at anyone having anything to do with asylum seekers in any setting.

"If someone disclosed information that the Australian Navy or customs pushed a boat back out into dangerous waters—and people drowned because of it—they could go to jail."

He says he has "no doubt" there would be legal challenges to the legislation as "most judges and the courts generally would be horrified by legislation that allows for the cover up of physical and mental abuse."

Professor David Isaacs is a pediatrician who worked on Nauru in December last year and subsequently spoke about his experiences to the media.

Related: Watch our documentary on Za'atari refugee camps

The Professor remains defiant in the face of new laws, but worries others may be easily silenced with the threat of incarceration.

"It is easy for me because my kids have grown up, so it doesn't phase me," he said.

Other detention center workers with young families, he explained, have a lot more to lose, particularly given the "vindictiveness" and "viciousness" shown by the government in pursuing Freya Newman. In 2014, Newman revealed a daughter of Australia's Prime Minister had received a secret scholarship to fashion college, the Whitehouse Institute, with the aid of its chairman, a Liberal Party donor.

"That means people are scared to report child abuse even though we have a mandatory obligation to report child abuse anywhere in Australia."

Professor Isaacs says the Immigration Department is already "pretty secretive and pretty nasty" to people who've disclosed conditions to the media. He says nobody will employ him to work in a detention center again because he spoke out.

"They silence people who do it, and they do this in many ways. If we speak out on social media for instance, you may never get employed again. That is not necessarily stated outright but effectively that's what happens," he said.

When asked about the conditions he witnessed, Professor Isaacs talked of women and children too scared to go to the bathroom after dark, canvas tents with no running water, and the indefinite imprisonment of entire families in Nauru's hot, humid and inhospitable terrain in the middle of the island, well away from its 10,000 inhabitants.

"It is deliberate policy to harm people mentally and physically as an act of deterrence. It's quite extraordinary that nobody else in the world tries to make a place worse than the place asylum seekers are fleeing from."

Speaking with VICE, Greens senator and immigration spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young said, "the more we discover of what's been going on inside Nauru, the worse it gets.

"Nauru is a seedy, toxic, and dangerous place. No women and children should be forced to stay there."

VICE contacted the office of the Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton, and the Opposition Spokesperson for Immigration, Richard Marles. Neither were able to provide comment before publication.

Follow Lauren on Twitter.

'Empire Records' screenshot via YouTube.

Nostalgia is usually bullshit, but the 90s really were a better time, at least in America. The economy was booming, the Soviet Union was busted, The Simpsons was in its prime, the World Trade Center had yet to fall, the dot-com bubble had yet to pop, and the world order was chilled-out enough that our president spent his days courting the affections of interns. It was a simpler time for movies as well, with concepts like, "What if two guys were in a convenience store talking?" or "What if some kids were in a record store goofin' off?" or "What if there were some surfers who robbed banks?" or "What if Goodfellas was more gangster rap than guido?" Who knew they could turn these concepts into bona fide classics?

But those born in the 90s largely missed out, not only on all the economic prosperity and the golden age of comfortable flannel shirts being in fashion, but on the films that the laid-back era produced. Our editorial assistant Lauren, for instance, was born in 1992 and had never seen many pivotal 90s films, and so we ordered her to watch Point Break, Menace II Society , Empire Records, Clerks, Terminator 2, and American Pie , then tell us what she thought of them. Here's what she said:

Point Break (1991)

This film has everything: firearms, bank robbers, surfing, football, car chases, fight scenes, naked chicks, a kidnapping, and a couple of casual skydiving scenes, because why not?

There's a plot in here about a very acting-y Keanu Reeves infiltrating a gang of bank-robbing surfers led by an ageless Patrick Swayze (My roommate thought Swayze was Owen Wilson for a good portion of the movie.) The film also features a young Gary Busey, which led to an aha moment: This is how he was famous before he became reality TV's favorite rehab patient and that "kooky yelling dude in those Amazon commercials."

This is a really bro-tastic movie, as any film about bank-robbing surfers who have heart-to-hearts while falling out of planes should be. There are a ton of one-liners that, as my roommate put it, were "like a bad game of masculinity Mad Libs." Like when the FBI boss tells Reeves's character that he's "young, dumb, and full of cum," or Busey's meltdown: "Listen you snot-nose little shit, I was takin' shrapnel in Khe Sanh when you were crappin' in your hands and rubbin' it on your face." Despite all the bad acting and screaming, the film at its core is about how men bond through passion and mutual respect. Also, it was directed by Kathryn Bigelow?

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Having not yet been conceived when this movie came out in theaters (let that sink in a moment), I had never seen any of the Terminator franchise, so I had a few questions while watching the second installment. For starters, What's with the time travel? ; Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a bad guy or a good guy?; Is young John Connor the most badass ten-year-old or the most annoying kid ever? ; How do you kill a Terminator?; and Who the hell is Kyle? Luckily, 2015 has Wikipedia, so we got caught up.

I quickly learned why there are 617-and-counting Terminator films: A cyborg sent from the future is the perfect role for Schwarzenegger, who just needs to stand and run silently while looking muscly and tough.

Other good things about Terminator 2 included the special effects, which seemed pretty good for the early 90s, and the strong, complex female lead—something that's still rare in mainstream films today. It was also deeply gratifying to witness Arnie say, "Hasta la vista, baby."

Menace II Society (1993)

OK, so this one was pretty much catchphrase-free. Menace provides a raw, gritty look at a group of young black teenagers growing up in South Central LA. The protagonist Caine and his friends are surrounded by mayhem and death—at first, it's shocking to watch, then it seems almost casual as it becomes clear that for these characters, violence is used as a tool for survival even as it serves as their undoing. The film shows a different side to growing up in the 90s that isn't represented in a lot of the other movies that I've seen. Typical 90s plot points like facing the school bully, getting asked to prom, or having to work on your day off are trivial concerns compared to what young people like the ones in this film face everyday. Menace is dark and unflinching, one of those movies that you're glad you saw—recognizing the importance of turning the lens towards communities too often stereotyped or ignored all together by Hollywood—but aren't eager to rewatch, because it's almost too real.

American Pie (1999)

There always seems to be at least one or two taboo movies that separate a generation's "cool kids" from the nerds. I was seven when American Pie came out, and it seemed like one of those treasured markers of adult knowledge—every time it was mentioned, the adults around me reacted with hushed voices or eye rolls. Which, of course, made me all the more curious about it.

Unfortunately, this franchise-spawning teen movie is baaaddddddd. It's about four horny high school senior guys who are shamelessly looking for vaginas to stick their penises in—and any vagina will do, as long as penetration happens before graduation. Along the way the audience is treated to misogyny, objectification, some nudity, an awful musical number, a very concerning scene with a homemade dessert, and of course, that infamous "One time, at band camp..." line. Movies are not real life, so three out of four of the boys get laid. Miraculously.

I wasn't entertained or impressed. There were a lot more palm-to-forehead moments than laughter. I experienced a heavy dose of second-hand embarrassment and got a little sad at the one-dimensional representation of the American male teenager, as well as the lack of creativity, originality, or wit in film itself. Hopefully, hook-up culture has moved in a better direction after all these years.

Clerks (1994)

This, however, was a pleasant surprise, given that it's a black-and-white movie from Cop Out director Kevin Smith. It's rough around the edges, obviously cheap (it apparently had a budget of less than $30,000), and is mostly about a couple of guys named Randal and Dante shooting the shit. There's not much action, the plot is loose, and the scenes are simply staged—but it feels authentic, somehow. It's an expert portrayal of the limbo that many of us 20-somethings find ourselves in when we wake up every morning and ask ourselves, What the hell am I supposed to DO with the rest of my life?

Empire Records (1995)

It doesn't get any more 90s than a film about a group of misfit teenagers working at the coolest record store ever—in some ways, it's like watching the MadMen people with their rotary phones and secretaries and drawn-by-hand ad mockups. Did people actually do all this stuff? You could pay the lease on a massive retail space like that from selling records?

But the setting doesn't really matter: This is a movie about the uncertainty of the future, both when it comes to the music industry and when it comes to fragile teenage relationships. It stars a young Liv Tyler and Renee Zellweger, alongside relatively unknown teen heartthrob Johnny Whitworth. Who is this guy and why wasn't he in more movies? Damn.

This offered a much better take on sexuality and growing up than American Pie particularly when it came to the female characters. Liv Tyler, the goody-goody who's dying to lose her virginity to rock star Rex Manning, embodies a lot of the complexities and pressures that come with trying to be a good student, but also desirable and sexy, but also a good friend, and just generally keep one's shit together.

At times events seemed to come out of nowhere, like the whole suicide subplot and the speed addiction, (was speed like the Adderall of the time?), but it's fun, entertaining, has good music, and left me feeling like like I finally understood why everyone goes on and on about the 90s.

Follow Lauren on Twitter.

The Joker and Batman, as depicted in promotional artwork for 2011's 'Batman: Arkham City.'

This article is part of VICE Gaming's Comic Connections week—find more here. Also: spoilers.

What makes the Batman? Some might answer gadgets, others the struggle to keep Gotham safe. Or there's the possibility that it's actually Bruce Wayne himself, an alter-ego complex wreaking havoc on his sense of identity. Perhaps it's trauma, the lopsided way the Dark Knight sees the world following the death of his parents.

Arguments could be made for any of the above answers. But every argument would be wrong. As more than anything else, it's the Joker that makes Batman, and everything else pales in significance beside his maniacal grin. There's no place here for Generation Wuss ambiguity, so go on, stick your neck out with me. It's the Joker that makes Batman.

Because face it: Batman is an entirely one-dimensional entity when viewed in isolation. Wonderful for many reasons, yes, but shallow, a man playing out the same single act time after time: stop the bad people from doing bad things to good people who just want to get by. Sure, exactly where those law-abiding citizens draw the line on the legend of the Batman varies—to some he's nothing but a force for good, to others a warped manifestation of the selfishness and evil that can consume all men. But how the emotional core of his character is presented, even in the best of comics, movies, and games, is typically predictable.

Until, that is, the Joker arrives. Where Batman is constantly searching for meaning and reasons to see himself and his actions as somehow heightened and superior to those of the rest of the society, Joker reminds us that, ultimately, everything is fleeting and meaningless. In the grand scheme of the world and the universe, you're meaningless, I'm meaningless, Batman is meaningless, and it's silly to think otherwise. Might as well have some fun while we're still around and stop worrying about our legacy and the impact we have on others.

As individuals, then, both the Joker and Batman are equally shallow and vacuous. But as two sides of the same coin they merge to create a quite brilliant whole in which that question of existence—why am I here?—is brought to a head in an earthquake of equal and opposite forces.

On Noisey: Fleetwood Mac Is Batman

Let's face another truth: video games are not known for their grand history of exemplary storytelling. As far as the mainstream consciousness is concerned, whether true or not, the narrative quality of games ranks somewhere above pornography and below the most base of comic books. To expect a Batman game to provide a classic rendition of the Joker/Batman dichotomy in the face of such wonderful works as Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, Grant Morrison's Batman: Arkham Asylum, or Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight movie is perhaps expecting too much.

However, Rocksteady's newly released (unless you're a PC gamer) Batman: Arkham Knight manages to hit notes of at least equal strength, despite the Joker having died in the developer's previous Arkham series entry, 2011's Arkham City. And if you've not finished Arkham Knight, or at least got a fair way into its main plot, I'd advise you to stop reading now and come back once you're further in. Of course, if you've no interest in playing the game, or don't care about having plot aspects spoiled for you (if you're just in it for the action, or something), read on.

Why so serious?

Let's ignore the questionable plot devices used to create a situation in which a still very much dead Joker is able to impact the mind of Batman in Arkham Knight, manifesting as chattering visions across Gotham, and instead concentrate on the way that cerebral habitation does a wonderful job of exploring the relationship between these two sociopaths.

A dead Joker forces Batman to question his reason for existing in the world. Without the clown's constant badgering, mockery, and undermining, Gotham's self-appointed protector is at a loss to create a platform upon which to stack meaning atop his actions.

Yes, there's the task of stopping Scarecrow and the newly introduced Arkham Knight from taking over Gotham, but the motivations of these two characters don't resonate anywhere near as strongly with Batman's internal struggle. Resultantly, in comparison to the Joker, these villains feel like hollow shells; entities created with the sole purpose of creating conflict, rather than pondering themes of morality, ethics, and personal interpretation.

Related: The Mystical Universe of 'Magic: The Gathering'

You might also love our documentary on eSports

The real story of Batman: Arkham Knight, then, is the one playing out within Batman's head. By forcing the Joker's ideology inside the mind of our hero, the struggle for dominance is set on what is possibly the most equal ground that this battle has ever enjoyed. Whether it's in comics, films, or previous games, Batman has always had the upper hand when it comes to confronting the Joker in a good, old-fashioned physical fight. Taking away the body, though, and concentrating purely on the mind gives the game's narrative a genuinely mature and wholly engaging edge. And this vision has been in place for some time.

"When we made the first game [2009's Arkham Asylum], we hoped that there would be a sequel," Rocksteady's Dustin Hulm, the lead engine programmer on Arkham Knight, told VICE. "We didn't know if there would be, but we did lay some foundations for the future in there.

"When Arkham City was developing well, though, we kind of knew that would be the middle of a trilogy. That game concluded with Joker's death, and we knew after that it was going to be interesting to explore this world, post-Joker. Somewhere halfway through City's development we had fleshed out the story arc [across the trilogy] as a whole."

Generally, this has been a series that has always tried to make you appreciate the power and sense of cool that comes with being Batman. But that is subverted in Arkham Knight by the game's undermining of the very idea of the Batman while, smartly, it doesn't relinquish any of the physical attributes we've gotten used to through controlling his actions.

The Joker, as he appears in 2009's 'Arkham Asylum.'

Although Batman can still pound generic enemies with his fists, there's no way for him to snuff out or silence the Joker's hold on his mind. He can't punch or glide his way out of this one. He can't pull out a fancy gadget or rely on the Batmobile to do the dirty work for him. It's his inner self, his consciousness, versus that of the Joker, a beautiful distillation of a conflict that so many writers have tried to get right—and that the majority of which have failed miserably to do justice to.

"Something that runs through our games is the idea of escalation, with Batman and the villains both enhancing their abilities as they try to stay ahead of one another," Hulm adds. "That isn't unique to us, though, as it runs through a lot of Batman stuff. Scarecrow taunts Batman with that idea in Arkham Knight, suggesting that this escalation is all Batman's fault in the first place."

Scarecrow might kick off that idea, but it's the constant provocation of Joker within Batman's mind that enhances this suggestion and serves to challenge the Caped Crusader's vision of himself as an elite personage destined to play savior. It questions the very fabric of his existence in a way that a brawn-driven approach just couldn't manage. In this sense, killing the Joker in City has martyred his view of the world and forced Batman to perhaps concede that his own ideas are not worth the time of day.

The launch trailer for 'Batman: Arkham Knight'—which we reviewed here

Furthermore, by having the minds of Batman and the Joker inhabit the same space, there are few Batman stories that help you better understand both characters. Having conflicting thoughts within the same grey matter endears you to them, as good as equally, as you see the flaws in both their attitudes. As with many things, perfection is boring and predictable—it's the awkward edges that make us interesting.

Ultimately, Arkham Knight is a quite brilliant example of superheroes being made or broken on the quality of their meaning, not on the circumference of their muscles, the size of the their bank accounts, or their access to technology. And it's one of the best stories ever told in the history of Batman's eternal struggle against his greatest nemesis. After all, a battle of ideologies is always more interesting than one between fists. More comic books, and comic book-inspired output, would benefit from bringing that understanding closer to their creative cores.

Rocksteady killing the Joker made their version of the character more powerful than he ever was in life. He might be dead, but Arkham Knight asks us who's really had the last laugh?

Follow John Robertson on Twitter.

Scalia in all his glory, via Wikimedia Commons

As you're no doubt aware, today (Friday), with a vote of 5-4, the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. The practical outcome of this decision is unusually cut-and-dried, and immediate. A few other things were weird too—among them, the sheer volume of ink and emotion dedicated to dissenting opinions.

Here's what you need to know:

Gay marriage bans are a violation of the fourteenth amendment, the ruling argues. The fourteenth amendment guarantees you the right to due process, and of course "equal protection," so in this way, same-sex marriage is now protected. This decision means the 14 states where gay marriage wasn't fully legal this morning—those are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan—have to start giving out marriage certificates to same-sex couples, and recognizing out-of-state same-sex unions, like right now.

Nonetheless, some officials such as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, are still dragging their feet, telling county clerks to wait for an internal policy decision on the matter.

The actual case that formed the basis for this ruling, Obergefell vs. Hodges, is super depressing. It centers around a guy from Ohio named Jim Obergefell who married his husband John Arthur in 2013 on a plane over Maryland, right after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, and—sadly—right before Arthur died of ALS. Obergefell then sued to have his name included on Arthur's death certificate in Ohio, where same-sex marriages still weren't recognized. So effectively, ruling that Ohio had to write down Obergefell's name as a spouse, by implication, meant that all state bans on gay marriage had to vanish. Get it?

The majority decision was written by centrist Supreme Court Justice, and arguably the most powerful man in America, Anthony Kennedy. The language is plain, but it concludes with a soul-searching, heartfelt summary of what marriage is. If you're planning to get married soon, gay or not, it'd be a good thing to read during the ceremony. I'm not kidding:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Usually, one dissenting opinion does the trick, but in this case, weirdly, all four of the dissenting judges (Even Samuel Alito, the Millhouse of the Supreme Court) vented their opinions in separate dissents.

Related: 'Gay Conversion Therapy'

Antonin Scalia, who is known for sprucing up his writing with English words and phrases that haven't been used since the Polk Administration—yesterday he put "jiggery-pokery" in a decision—did not disappoint with his vehement defense of same-sex marriage bans. In addition to shoehorning in the word "o'erweening," and "mummeries," (It doesn't mean "memories of a mummy," I checked) he trashed Kennedy's opinion as "couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic." He went on to suggest that this decision puts the whole legislative branch in jeopardy.

With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

As usual, the bombast kind of blurs the substance, but Scalia sounds like he might thinks this ruling will be ignored. Otherwise, it's unclear how the Supreme Court will become impotent.

Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion was less entertaining, but it was the one stapled to the majority decision. It included a section about the constitution:

Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

...and devolved into a slippery slope argument:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.

He's not really hiding what he's saying: polygamy might be next. Maybe he's right. Who knows?

But easily the most disquieting dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. He took issue with the primacy of dignity in Kennedy's opinion, and gave us a deep dive into dignity's role in civil rights struggles, and his views seem far from universal:

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

The Whitney Houston-esque idea that a government can't take away dignity is comforting. Thomas apparently imagines all the oppressed people throughout American history—the ones getting run off their land, denied rights, whipped, subjugated, beaten, separated from their families, imprisoned, starved to death, and massacred—were never once, through all of it, denied dignity by the government that was doing those things. That's touching, but counterintuitive.

Anyway, the upshot is that you have the right to go to a county clerk and get a marriage license for yourself and your same-sex partner in any jurisdiction in America now, but four Supreme Court Justices really think you shouldn't. But what they think doesn't matter any more than what they think of how you have sex.

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

Photo by Flickr user jhaymesisviphotography

We've all sent messages that we desperately wish we could un-send: the unintentional reply-all, the autocorrect fail, the shit-talking text message you accidentally sent to the very person you were shit-talking. It's a byproduct of living in the digital age—communication gets warped, rerouted, delivered to the wrong person, in the wrong context. Sometimes, you realize your mistake a split-second after you hit "send," but more often, it's not until you get a response that you realize what you've done. Either way, it's too late. The damage has been done.

This week, Google announced a tool that could change all that: Gmail's magical " undo send" feature. It's not exactly new—it's been in beta-testing mode for six years, and there are scores of other apps that purport to do the same thing for emails and text messages. Now that it's officially launched, though, we wondered: How many relationships and reputations could've been saved with this one tool?

We asked people who've made horrible and hilarious messaging errors to tell us about that one message they wish they could've un-sent. These are their stories.

Things You Accidentally Sent to Your Mom

When I was in high school, my parents were out of town and I threw a big party. I thought I'd cleaned everything but my sister went on our back porch and found a bag of weed my friend had left. I went to text my friend saying, "Dude, you left your bag of weed on my deck. My sister found it," but instead of sending it to "Molly," I accidentally sent it to mom. My mom immediately called me and I realized I sent the text to her. I answered and she asked who I meant to send that text to. I tried to play dumb for a little while and then ended up telling her I just had a few girlfriends over and we smoked. IDK if she bought it, but she didn't ground me. — Morgan

I once sent my girlfriend-at-the-time a text that said "I'm going to make your vagina cry." By mistake, I sent it to my mom. — Jemayel

Things You Didn't Mean to Reply-All

When I was in college, one of my professors sent out an email to our 200-person anthropology lecture, announcing that our midterm scores were available to view online. Someone in the class regrettably hit "reply all" when he wrote back to complain about getting a failing grade. I basically died of embarrassment on his behalf. — Anna

I sent my boss an email, jokingly pointing out an error a coworker made. I accidentally copied that coworker on an email. He took it so personally that he made it his mission to try to have me fired for harassment and bullying in the workplace, even after my explaining there was no malice or ill intent. It was a joke, you weirdo. — Janea

More things we wish we could take back: YouTube sensation Shoenice22 has spent the last two years eating and drinking everything from sticks of deodorant to tampons to full bottles of grain alcohol.

THINGS YOU MEANT TO SEND TO A LOVER

I took a highly pornographic photo of my butt once, and accidentally sent it to my mom instead of my boyfriend. I covered it up by saying, "Have I always had that freckle? I'm concerned that it's growing." — Erin

Junior year of college, I was still heartbroken by my love from my freshman year. The whole situation had been pretty traumatic—she was so happy with this guy who wasn't me! So I wrote her a long email one night about how I was irrevocably in love with her and she needed to come to terms with her not-straight side and break up with her stupid boyfriend. I saved it as a draft... until another night, when I very drunkenly sent it to her. I had a response, deservedly, not a very nice one, waiting for me when I woke up the next morning. We haven't spoken since. — Renata

I sent my brother a text once saying I was "fiercely horny." — Mikol

Things You Sent to the Person You Were Shit-Talking

In high school, I was rooming with two of my best friends on a school trip. One of them had been acting like a mega bitch, so I texted the other one telling her how miserable the trip was gonna be with our bitchy friend. Except I accidentally typed in the bitchy friend's name. We were stuck in a room together for a long weekend and our friendship never recovered. I definitely wish I had rethought that text and could take it back. — Emily

In ninth grade, this girl I had a crush on texted me to tell me she had broken up with her boyfriend. I immediately went to text my sister and wrote: "Lindsay and Scotty broke up!" But when I saw the response—"I know, I just told you"—I realized that I had accidentally sent it to Lindsay. I played it off cool, and she never realized I had a huge crush on her. — Coby

This girl was rushing my sorority and I accidentally texted her all the horrible things people—including me—said about her behind her back. — Anna

After I was laid off, I wrote this long thank-you-for-the-opportunity email to my boss. She wrote back saying, "Got your uniform and good luck with everything." I was upset, and so I screenshot it haughtily to send to my friend and wrote "lol succinct," but I sent it to my ex-boss instead. I followed up ASAP apologizing for my "rookie mistake," but then I blocked her number so I would never know the response. I was mortified. — Kate

* Name has been changed.

Follow Arielle Pardes on Twitter.

This is the face of a panty-selling (fictional) criminal mastermind. Photo courtesy Orange is the New Black

The story obviously discusses this season of Orange is the New Black, so don't complain if we spoiled a subplot.

The panty-selling business is hardly a new idea; most have heard of the used women's underwear vending machines in Japan, and people all over the world have been selling their dirty unmentionables on the internet for years.

But due to a plot line containing a ring of panty-selling convicts in the latest season of the popular Netflix series Orange Is the New Black (OITNB), set in a women's prison in upstate New York, the biz has been experiencing a surge of new buyers and sellers.

Google trends shows the search term "sell used panties" experienced the biggest global spike ever following June 12 when Orange Is the New Black's third season premiered.

Screenshot via Google

On top of that, a spokesperson for Pantydeal.com (one of the largest used-panty selling websites), Paul Richter, told VICE that the company he works for saw a dramatic increase in registration and traffic soon after Orange Is the New Black's season three premiere. While its number of new registers per day is usually about 150, shortly after the premiere of the season in June, about 1,000 people signed up in a single day.

"Because of Orange Is the New Black, it's crazy right now," Richter said. "It's a great second income." On average, Richter said, sellers on the company's group of sites make about $500-700 US per month.

I spoke with a 22-year-old guy who recently began selling a female friend's used panties on Reddit for extra cash. His foray into this side hustle began about two weeks ago, following the premiere of OITNB.

"[My friend] always has these weird ideas, but this time she was really insistent upon it," he said. "Honestly, when she brought it up, I didn't think anything of it, but then when I found out it was a thing in Orange Is the New Black, like, it made sense because she watches it... she just finished the last episode of season three."

He assists his female friend by helping to take photos and videos (which he makes into gifs) of her from the waist down in prospective panties, then handles the posting on Reddit, answering and reading X-rated emails from customers, payment, and finally, packaging in wax paper within sealed plastic bags and mailing. They've sold three pairs so far at $30-35 each, and he's taken about a 65 percent cut from each sale.

Check out that merch. Or don't; maybe don't. Photo courtesy MissBeaHaven

"I'm sure [my friend] had heard of it before, but seeing it on the show just refreshed her memory—like, 'Oh, I'm broke, I should do this!'" he said.

When I asked what it's like talking to panty-sniffing Redditors online, he said he's read some pretty raunchy emails describing how badly they want to eat and worship his female friend's ass. When replying to the emails of prospective customers, he pretends to be her.

"Talking about this is making me think about what the hell I'm doing with my life," he said at the close of our interview.

For some people, though, panty selling is serious business. MissBeaHaven, a 25-year-old cam model who works on MyFreeCams.com, has sold her panties for over five years and told me a significant amount of her income derives from her worn unmentionables. She sells 10-15 pairs per month at $20 each—about 25 percent of the income she makes in her camming career overall.

"When I watched that episode I thought how accurately they were portraying the dirty panty biz," MissBeaHaven told me. "Sometimes girls will use saliva, snot, or other random substances out of laziness just to sell the panties, so when Piper's (the main character) brother was talking about that fishy-honey substance they made, they were totally right. There's always a scam inside of some market, that is one!"

MissBeaHaven sells her panties privately through a special password-protected gallery on her MyFreeCams profile, which she says is more legit than using Reddit. (She's been catfished on a subreddit where used panties are sold; counterfeit goods are a stark reality in this industry.) Camgirls and porn stars have a special advantage when it comes to the panty-selling business: they have established fan bases, and if they're successful, they've already figured out exactly how to market themselves.

"If someone is watching a girl live getting panties messy right before their eyes, they want them," she said.

For women entering into the bizarre world of selling their dirty delicate laundry online due to OITNB or otherwise, MissBeaHaven says honesty is key—yes, there are ethics even in this pervy underground market.

"If she [makes] an effort to promote herself and actually interact with her panty lovers, they would make more money," she said.

Follow Allison Elkin on Twitter.

Franklin Graham, the conservative Christian evangelist and one of Billy Graham's five children, has given a fun interview to Fox News in which he protested today's landmark decision by the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage.

"This court is endorsing sin," he told Fox's Todd Starnes. He criticized the ruling, which will drastically improve the lives of millions of Americans and have no effect whatsoever on marriage for straight people, saying, "Is there going to be discrimination against churches, organizations like what I represent, who want to stand by the biblical definition of marriage?"

Starnes asked, "Is this going to be open season on Christians, on Christian business owners who refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies?"

Graham responded, "You better be ready, and you better be prepared. There will be persecution of Christians for our stand."

Additionally, Graham warned that though God loves everyone, He thinks homosexuality is a sin. "Our nation has a spiritual problem, and we need God's forgiveness... I do believe God's judgment will come upon this nation. When we read the scripture, God's judgment would come upon Israel, time and time again, when they turned their back on Him." In other words, he's saying we should brace ourselves for plagues.

Earlier today, Graham posted a message on his Facebook page protesting the ruling:

This isn't Graham's first time bashing gay marriage. He backed North Carolina's 2012 referendum against same-sex marriage, and has been vocal in his support of Russian President Vladimir Putin's stance against homosexuality.

It is worth noting that Franklin Graham is now President and CEO of his father Billy Graham's organization, and effectively acts as his father's spokesperson.

Five In-Depth Stories About the Christian Right:

1. The Josh Duggar Scandal Is Part of a Much Larger Christian Abuse Problem
2. Conservatives Are Already Planning New Ways to Take Down Gay Marriage
3. A Masturbation Lawsuit Is Rattling Christian Homeschoolers
4. Christians Made a Horror Film About a Haunted Box of Porn
5. Don't Bet on the Apocalypse

Follow Drew on Twitter.

Prime Minister Stephen HarperPAC—er, Harper. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

HarperPAC is dead! Long live the HarperPAC!

On Thursday night, Stephen Taylor announced that HarperPAC, after just a few short days, would be closing up shop as the country's go-to deregulated, shadowy pot of money dedicated to getting Stephen Harper re-elected.

VICE News reported earlier this week on the dawn on HarperPAC and its left-wing rivals.

Taylor was the group's primary spokesperson, and his decision to roll up the red carpet came as a pretty big surprise to everyone.

Taylor tweeted the news with an oddly chipper: "It's been a heck of a week! Here's an update on HarperPAC."

The "update," of course, is that it was dead.

"We brought the issue of third party financing out of the shadows," the statement read, as though the intent of the shadowy lobby group was to shed light on the terrifying dark netherworld of pre-election campaign spending, instead of being a unregulated shell corporation for the Conservative Party.

"We were pleased to drive a very fevered discussion about the place of third party money in pre-writ political campaigns," it goes on.

HarperPAC drove the discussion around the place of third party money in the same way that a dumpster-fire drives a discussion about fire trucks.

But the death of HarperPAC isn't exactly a victory for responsible democracy in Canada. In fact, things may get worse.

HarperPAC wasn't the only shadowy cabal of election agitators, though they were the only ones with the decency to publish a list of their organizers.

In fact, the left is much more guilty of this than the right. Between unions and other lobby groups, so-called progressives are the ones funnelling unmarked money into our political system.

Engage Canada, which began before the pro-Conservative lobby group, has not openly published who is running it, who is donating, whether it's coordinating with the NDP and Liberals, or even how much money it raised.

When VICE tried to find out anything about the group's finances, a spokesperson said: "we're not going to talk about money."

And they don't have to.

Thanks to Canada's campaign finance rules, third-party advertisers (or PACs, or SuperPACs, or whatever you want to call them) are basically unrestricted in what they're allowed to do.

Political parties can only receive $1,500 per person, the details of each must be published quarterly, and they must report their complete financials to Elections Canada every year. They cannot receive money from foreign entities, unions, or corporations. They may spend unlimited amounts of money in the lead-up to the election campaign (currently scheduled to begin in mid-September) but will be limited to a roughly $20-million spending cap each during the campaign itself.

Third party groups, on the other hand, can do whatever the fuck they want.

PACs can receive as much money as they want, from whoever they want, and do whatever they want with it (except donate it to a political party.) They don't report to anyone, and aren't required to disclose any finances or contributions. The Pope could donate the entire Vatican to Engage Canada, and they could use it to buy everyone in Canada a new car. (Please let this happen.)

While third-party advertising must cease during the campaign period itself, these PACs still have all summer to bludgeon our democracy to death.

Blofeld could start the SPECTRE-PAC. Dr. Claw could found M.A.D-PAC. Serpentor could invent COBRA-PAC.

I mean, this could be how Canada's most feared secret criminal organization begins. Is that what we want?

At least in the United States, there are rules around this. While SuperPACs there might be monstrosities bloated with vote-buying money, at least most of them are required to report their earnings, and are forbidden from cooperating with the campaigns they're endorsing.

Here in Canada, those rules don't exist. No rules. There aren't any rules. There are just no rules. None. No rules.

Stephen Harper, when he got elected, cracked down on money in politics—he's the one who set the tough contribution limits, and banned corporate and union donations—but he's also the one who set fixed election dates. That's pretty much what led to this nonsense, by sending a batsignal to every political operative that they have a clear window in which to campaign for/against their party of choice.

And that's where we're at.

Engage Canada, according to Stephen Taylor anyway, has over a million bucks in the bank, to be used entirely to try and oust Stephen Harper from the iron throne. They've already produced two television attack ads targeting the Harper government.

On the other side, there's Working Canadians, an anti-union, anti-tax group that's been going after the Liberals. They've managed to muster two particularly gross radio ads.

In one of the ads, they basically accuse him of stealing from charities.

So we thought we'd give a chance to all three major parties to officially denounce this travesty of democracy, and commit to banning this evil.

We asked them specifically whether they support HarperPAC and Engage Canada, and whether they'd introduce legislation to end the practise if they were to win.

Here's what the Conservatives told us:

We restored accountability in Ottawa by introducing the Federal Accountability Act, banning union and corporate political donations, expanding access to information legislation, and creating new oversight bodies including the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

That all happened nine years ago.

The Liberals, of course, opposed these measures. The choice for Canadians in this election is clear—the proven leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper or the high-tax, risky NDP and Liberals.

Yeah, that didn't really answer the question.

Though after the HarperPAC shut down, the Conservatives were happy to voice their displeasure with it.

When we asked the NDP, they didn't release a full statement, but assured us that Mulcair has said that the PACs represent an "Americanization" of the Canadian electoral system, and that regulations ought to be tightened. Then they sent us the following fundraising email.

This week, we learned that Stephen Harper's friends have set up a U.S.-style group called The Harper PAC to spend an obscene amount of money on Harper's re-election.

It's the kind of money we've never seen before in Canadian politics, and it's up to us to fight back right now.

Donate $5 or more before the June 30th filing deadline.

Obviously, we have seen that money before in Canadian politics. Longtime NDP organizer Kathleen Monk, who still remains close with Mulcair's party, is one of the Engage Canada organizers.

And here's what the Liberals told us:

We strongly believe that fundraising rules are important for our democracy. We do not support any initiatives which aim at finding "loopholes" in the current legislation and taking advantage of them. The Conservatives are always trying to circumvent the laws, this just being another example. The HarperPAC, run by conservative insiders, is the ultimate example of the Harper conservatives disregard for transparency, fair elections, and democracy. On our side, efforts are put toward continuing to grow our donor base and engage more Canadians in our movement not in trying to find creative ways to sidestep the spirit of the electoral legislation, which is clearly intended to have citizens (not corporations) participate in the electoral process through political donations.

Obviously, the Liberals failed to note that Engage Canada is also doing this work, and is also being directed by several Liberal strategists.

So no party has actually said they'll ban these slush funds outright.

That should make you very angry.

Maybe you should start a SuperPAC to let political parties know your thoughts.

Follow Justin Ling on Twitter.

SPVM Chief Marc Parent and Nakuset. Photo by Tim McSorley

Members of Montreal's Aboriginal community hope a new agreement with the Montreal police will help reshape their relationship with the city's cops.

Signed on Thursday, the agreement commits the Montreal police to new practices to better serve the Aboriginal community in Montreal. Elements range from establishing an Aboriginal advisory committee to the Montreal police force (SPVM) to, in a first for municipal police in Canada, develop a protocol for addressing the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women.

"Our people have inherited a legacy of historical trauma and racism. Through imposed treaties and the Indian Act we lost our land, followed by 200 years of residential schools where our language and culture were practically eliminated. This collaboration will allow the SPVM to gain a better understanding of Aboriginal realities, through education and cultural awareness training," said Nakuset, the co-chair of the Montreal Urban Aboriginal Community Strategy Network (MUACSN), which developed the agreement. She signed the agreement on Thursday, along with SPVM Chief Marc Parent.

Montreal may not be as known as cities like Edmonton or Winnipeg for its urban Aboriginal population, or for problematic—and even deadly—interactions with police. But the relationship has still been a difficult one, with front line workers sharing stories of people being chased from parks and over-ticketed by police in a practice called "red-zoning." On top of that, the urban Aboriginal population in Montreal is both growing and facing rising rates of incarceration. According to Statistics Canada, Montreal's Aboriginal population was the fastest growing in the country between 2001 and 2006, increasing by 62 percent, slowing to a 25 percent increase between 2006 and 2011. Aboriginal adults are also over-represented in Quebec's jails, making up 4.4 percent of the prison population, but only represented 1.3 percent of Quebec's population as of 2011.

All this adds up to an urgent need for concrete changes in how Montreal interacts with the city's urban Aboriginal community.

The new collaboration agreement will see the Montreal police establish an Aboriginal Advisory Committee that would shape police training, bring forward concerns from the community and help chose a newly-created Aboriginal liaison officer. The SPVM also agreed to force-wide, mandatory education of officers; creating prevention programs to reduce arrests, ticketing and incarceration; and, importantly, to creating a protocol for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW).

While the elements of the MMIW protocol still need to be discussed and established by the community itself, some of the early ideas include setting up regulations to ensure regular contact with families during investigations, creating programs that help prevent violence towards Aboriginal women (including better educating men), and ensuring safety and support for the many Inuit women who come to Montreal from their communities in the north and arrive in the city with few resources.

While such a protocol is a first, the agreement as a whole is also a rarity, said Alana Boileau, the Justice and Public Security Co-ordinator with Quebec Native Women. In most other cities, she says, it is the municipality or police who establish their own policies, which may not reflect the concerns or needs of the community. In this case, the agreement was developed by Montreal's urban Aboriginal community through consultations with both organizations and individuals, including a committee of urban Aboriginal people who have faced homelessness in Montreal. Only then was the agreement brought to the police.

"This agreement stems from the ground up, it comes from the community," she said. "The community came to the police and said, we want an agreement."

Some may be cynical about such an agreement: Over recent years, Montreal police have come under heavy criticism for racial profiling and bad relations with the city's homeless population, including incidents such as the killing of Alain Magloire. But Marc Parent believes that this kind of agreement shows the police force is turning a corner, and he committed to more work being done.

"This initiative is from the bottom up [...] so the good news in that is that we already have a good relation with them. But it doesn't mean that we don't need to educate and train our people to be better." Parent also said he is pleased that this is one of the last agreements he will be signing before leaving the police force. His term as chief ends in September 2015.

Aboriginal organizers see room to be hopeful, too, said Jen Brazeau, coordinator of the MUACSN.

According to Brazeau, the SPVM had been "proactive" throughout the discussions, including appointing a new Aboriginal liaison officer before the agreement was even signed. "This shows really good will on their part," she said. She also pointed out that an important component going forward will be the Aboriginal Advisory Committee that will help keep an eye on the SPVM's progress and continue to work with other community members.

The new agreement with the SPVM comes as part of a broader push by the MUACSN for better services and support for Montreal's growing urban Aboriginal community, especially those who continue to suffer trauma from colonialism and initiatives like residential schools. This includes the Cabot Square Project, named for a Montreal park that serves as a gathering space for many members of the city's Aboriginal population, particularly Inuit people. When that park was shut down a few years ago for renovations—without consultation with the Aboriginal community—it highlighted the need for services to be strengthened. The result has been a community-led push on everything from restorative justice projects to help keep people out of prison, to a café in the park (set to re-open in early July) that employs Aboriginal people who are either homeless or have precarious living conditions. The MUACSN's efforts to improve support in that small part of downtown Montreal inspired the city-wide agreement.

The network is also looking forward to other community-led initiatives, including the establishment of an Aboriginal Justice Centre and an Aboriginal Health Centre that will provide services by and for the Montreal Aboriginal population to help improve living conditions, reduce homelessness and keep people from being criminalized.

"We really need to try and find innovative ways to change the demographics and opportunities of the Aboriginal people in Montreal," said Brazeau. Improving how Montreal's police treat the city's Aboriginal population is just one part of that puzzle.

Follow Tim McSorley on Twitter.

A mural in Cape Dorset. Courtesy Pat Thompson

A wall was required, and not just any wall would do.

Pat Thompson and Alexa Hatanaka know walls. They have splashed massive murals across walls around the world. Partners in life and art, the duo calling itself the PA System hunted the streets of Toronto for the right wall—two-storeys at least, in a visible location—over the last week after their original wall fell through. In just days, four teens from Cape Dorset, Nunavut arrive expecting to start painting a new mural in an experiment designed by Thompson and Hatanaka to provide young people a chance to reach beyond their own borders and limitations. A wall to bring down the walls, so to speak.

This is the image in need of a wall: a broken snowmobile carried on the back of an Inuk elder, the grandfather of one of the teen artists, surrounded by animals from Canada's north like a walrus and caribou.

On Friday, the perfect wall finally materialized, half a block from the lost wall, on Church St. north of King St. It's already white, and after prepping, will resemble perfectly an Arctic landscape. It's in a parking lot adjacent to Hostelling International. Someone just has to pay for the parking spaces for the next few weeks.

Thompson and Hatanaka almost accepted a wall on Sherbourne St., at one of Toronto's grittiest corners, but thought it would be unfair to the teens coming from a region vibrant with creativity and community but dimmed by tragedy and loss. In Cape Dorset, which calls itself the world Capital of Inuit Art, major economic activities include carving and print-making. According to the territory's tourism board, more than one in five residents make a living through art. But Inuit people also have lower life expectancy and higher suicide rates than the rest of Canada.

"These kids deserve to be front and centre and not tucked away with their artwork and their story out of sight and out of mind to Torontonians and Canada like they have been until now," Thompson said.

He and Hatanaka pled their case in the media and received more calls and messages than they could respond to. With plane tickets booked and grants in place, they hit the streets themselves this week, searching for the holy grail of walls: windowless, flat, smooth and big enough to make passerby stop and maybe think.

A lot of agencies are involved: the project is funded by the Canada Council for the Arts, Canadian Heritage and StreetARToronto, in collaboration with Mural Routes and the Nunavut Arts and Crafts Association. But none could provide a wall.

Though she can hardly believe it's now resolved, the new wall is beautiful, Hatanaka said. The four youths arrive on Monday and start painting next week.

Thompson and Hatanaka have traveled back and forth to Canada's north for years, to paint outdoor murals and run art workshops in painting and printmaking through the Embassy of Imagination, a youth organization they co-founded. The goal is achieving self-empowerment and resilience through art.

Their collaborative murals are now part of the landscape in the communities of Igloolik and Iqaluit in Nunavut, Kangsiqsujuaq and Kuujjuaq in Northern Quebec, as well as many cities across Ontario.

Follow Zoe McKnight on Twitter.

Photo via Flickr user Elvert Barnes.

Bigots are super pissed about today's Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, which struck down same-sex marriage bans in 14 states and represents a positive step in the direction of equality throughout the nation. Regardless of the fact that their lives will not be affected by the Court's decision, the ruling has the internet's hate-o-sphere going relatively bonkers, with memes, threats to picket, and bad vibes ricocheting around the web like cash in a money blowing booth where all the bills hate gay people.

Some of those problematic memes are on Vine, a great app that allows people to create six-second movies that encapsulate the totality of human existence: joy, pain, love, and total weirdness. One of Vine's greatest strengths is that it lets anyone become a micro-film auteur. The downside to that is that even totally horrible humans like the members of the Westboro Baptist Church can become amateur auteurs.

The WBC maintains an active presence on social media, with various Twitter and Vine accounts dedicated to spewing its bile around the clock, leading to such quality content as:

Perhaps the most elaborate piece of WBC anti-gay marriage propaganda, however, is this cover of Sam Smith's "Stay With Me," performed by Westboro Baptist Church members, with all the lyrics rewritten to be about why God hates gay marriage.

On Twitter, meanwhile, the WBC is tweeting up a storm, posting various bits of multimedia in protest of the historic ruling.

Haters gonna hate and Westboro Baptist Churches gonna Westboro Baptist Church, I suppose.

Five In-Depth Stories About the Westboro Baptist Church

1. People Are Leaving the Westboro Baptist Church for the Big Gay House Across the Road
2. How the Westboro Baptist Church Might Unwittingly Help the Marijuana Movement
3. We Got Members of the Westboro Baptist Church to Take Buzzfeed Quizzes
4. An Interview with Fred Phelps's Son, Nathan
5. This Guy Shot a Porn on the Westboro Baptist Church's Lawn

Follow VICE on Twitter.

Look at Gregory Mackay's website and Tumblr.

Richard Matt, right, has been killed by police. Photo via New York State Police

Richard Matt, the reportedly charming murderer with a mondo dick who escaped from Clinton Correctional Facility nearly three weeks ago, has been killed by police, the New York Times reports. He and another convicted killer, David Sweat, made a daring escape from the upstate prison on June 6 that captivated and horrified people all over the country.

After a series of salacious twists in the prisoners's story, police caught a break last weekend when they found DNA evidence that proved they were near a campsite in Franklin County. An official predicted Monday that time was running out for the duo, and another added on Wednesday that a confrontation would likely be explosive. The campsite they were at was actually a hunting cabin, which was full of free-for-the-taking firepower.

It's unclear what has happened with David Sweat, or why the two decided to separate. In many cases, it's advantageous for escapees to stick together, because they can sleep in shifts and encourage each other to keep moving.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Photo via Flickr user Rennett Stowe

This story was co-published with the Marshall Project.

Yesterday the Washington State Supreme Court threw out an obstruction conviction against a juvenile who had insulted police and refused to go away when they were detaining his younger sister. The juvenile, with the initials E.J.J., directed the word "motherfucker" at Seattle police officers, according to pleadings in the case. He used other names, too.

E.J.J., concerned for his sister's safety, had also insisted on staying and watching, refusing a police command to go inside the family's house and shut and lock the wooden front door behind him while officers dealt with his intoxicated sister in the driveway.

For the conviction of obstructing police, E.J.J. was sentenced to four days of detention (served on a work crew), two months of community supervision, and 18 hours of community service.

His appellate attorney, Lila Silverstein, told The Marshall Project: "We all know that speech does not have to be pretty to be protected." And the state Supreme Court agreed. Ruling that E.J.J.'s conviction violated the First Amendment, the court wrote: "While E.J.J.'s words may have been disrespectful, discourteous, and annoying, they are nonetheless constitutionally protected."

The court's finding reaffirmed a principle with a long and geographically sweeping history in the United States, to wit: People are allowed to call the police names, even really bad names, and really, it's hard to imagine a name much worse than "motherfucker."

[Editor's note: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.]

There are exceptions to this, of course. But in general—as the examples below attest—as long as people don't resort to conduct that threatens violence, or use "fighting words" likely to incite a violent response, they can go ahead and tell police what they think of them, be it through profanity, gesture, or donut reference.

"Asshole"

State: Nebraska

Case: Buffkins v. City of Omaha (8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990)

Summary: Two Omaha police officers, acting on an admittedly vague tip that a black person would be bringing in cocaine on a flight from Denver, stopped Lu Ann Buffkins, the sole black passenger to depart a particular plane. Buffkins had arrived holding a teddy bear, arousing suspicion because, to the eyes of police, the stuffed animal's seams appeared to be resewn, suggesting it might be bearing cocaine. After one officer "kneaded and felt the teddy bear" without detecting any cocaine, the police told Buffkins she was free to go. "Have a nice day," they told Buffkins, to which Buffkins replied, "I will have a nice day, asshole." The police arrested Buffkins for disorderly conduct.

Finding: The court held that the word "asshole," uttered under the circumstances here, did not amount to a "fighting word" that would justify arrest.

Addendum: "Asshole" has also been upheld in Indiana, where, in Cavazos v. State (Court of Appeals of Indiana, 1983), a woman whose brother was being arrested in a tavern called the arresting officer an "asshole," and in New York, where, in New York v. Gingello (City Court of New York, Rochester, Criminal Branch, Monroe County, 1971), a passenger in a car pulled over for a defective headlight told the officer, "You are an asshole." The New York court, in a finding some New Yorkers might dispute, wrote that "as a matter of law, the epithet 'asshole' is not so inherently inflammatory that, when addressed to an ordinary citizen, it is 'inherently likely to provoke violent action.'" The court added: "There was a period of time in our cultural milieu when the epithet may well have been inherently inflammatory. However, that situation no longer exists."

For more on cops, watch our interview with author Radley Balko on the Militarization of America's Police Force:

"Asshole," plus "stupid"

State: Michigan

Case: Greene v. Barber (6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2002)

Summary: Anthony Greene, described by a federal appeals court as a "six-foot, 300-pound lawyer," went to the Grand Rapids police department to get his car, which had been towed. When a lieutenant answered Greene's questions about storage fees in a way Greene considered to be arrogant, Greene told the lieutenant, "You know, you're really being [an] asshole." When the lieutenant said, "You can't talk to me like that in my building," Greene replied, "Well, if that's how you feel, you're really stupid." Then came pepper spray and handcuffs.

Finding: "Did Mr. Greene have a constitutionally protected right to call Lt. Barber an 'asshole' and castigate him as 'stupid?'" the federal appeals court wrote. "The answer, we suggest, depends on the time, place, and manner in which Mr. Greene so expressed himself." Under the circumstances here, the court determined, while "Mr. Greene's remarks were unflattering to Lt. Barber," they "clearly gave Barber no license to abridge Greene's freedom to speak as he did."

"Muttonhead," "czar"

State: New Jersey

Case: Ruthenbeck v. First Criminal Judicial District of Bergen County (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1929)

Summary: This one is sort of confusing. Frank Ruthenbeck, who worked as a prosecutor, became the prosecuted after entering police headquarters and saying to a police officer (who, at the time, was acting as a clerk of the court, receiving fines in an office outside a courtroom): "You big muttonhead, do you think you are a czar around here?" Ruthenbeck was charged with and convicted of disorderly conduct.

Finding: The New Jersey Supreme Court threw out Ruthenbeck's conviction, writing: "A muttonhead as defined by the dictionaries is a dull, heavy and uninteresting person. That the dignity of the clerk may have been ruffled by the language addressed to him is possible, but... [i]t is not every trivial epithet addressed by one person to another, even in the office of the clerk of the recorder's court and to a police officer doing desk duty there, that constitutes disorderly conduct."

"Fucking pigs," "fucking jokes," reference to donuts

State: Virginia

Case: Marttila v. City of Lynchburg (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2000)

Summary: When, at 2 AM, two Lynchburg police officers approached Mr. Marttila to ask about a "vehicle registration problem," Marttila, denying that the car in question belonged to him, walked away from the car and sat down on a nearby house's front porch steps. When the police, upon learning that the unregistered car did in fact belong to Marttila, handcuffed Marttila and ushered him off the porch, Marttila "called [the officers] fucking pigs, [and said they] were fucking jokes... [and] should be at a fucking donut shop." For this he was charged with and convicted of breaching the peace.

Finding: The state Court of Appeals threw out Marttila's conviction, finding that his "words did not have the necessary 'direct tendency' to cause 'an immediate, forceful and violent reaction by a reasonable person' in the position of the police officers at whom the words were directed. Although [Marttila] stiffened up when the officers began to handcuff him, he made no threatening gestures and merely expressed contempt for the officers in a general sense..."

Want more cops news? Read VICE News's series 'Officer Involved'

"Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?"

State: Texas

Case: City of Houston v. Hill (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987)

Summary: When Raymond Wayne Hill saw two Houston police officers approach a friend who was stopping traffic on a busy street, apparently to enable a vehicle to enter, Hill yelled at the officers: "Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?" Hill's friend was not arrested—but Hill was, under a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to "oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty."

Finding: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Houston ordinance was so overbroad as to be unconstitutional, writing: "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."

The middle finger

State: Connecticut

Case: State of Connecticut v. Anonymous (Superior Court of Connecticut, 1977)

Summary: A school bus, taking high school students home, stopped at an intersection. A police cruiser stopped behind the bus. A Connecticut court describes what happened next: "The defendant (a student in the back of the bus) wiped the condensation off the rear window of the bus and, upon seeing the trooper, waved a school chum over to him and then proceeded to make a gesture toward the trooper in which the middle finger of the defendant's right hand was held in an upright position with the palm of the hand toward the defendant." The trooper hit his siren, boarded the bus, and arrested the student, who was charged with and convicted of making an obscene gesture.

Finding: On appeal, a court threw out the conviction, writing: "To be obscene the expression must be, in a significant way, erotic... It can hardly be said that the finger gesture is likely to arouse sexual desire. The more likely response is anger."

Addendum: The middle finger—referred to by one legal commentator as Digitus Impudicus—has also been held up, and subsequently upheld, in other states, including Kansas, where, in 1997, a federal court determined in a civil suit that no crime was committed when a Mr. Duane Cook (not to be confused with Dane Cook) drove by a highway patrol officer—parked in his patrol car, monitoring the speed of passing vehicles—and "flipped the bird" to the trooper. "As irritating or insulting as [Cook's] conduct may have been," the court wrote, "government officials may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity."

This article was originally published by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization focused on the US criminal justice system. You can sign-up for their newsletter, or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.