Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[rambone]

Getting away from other examples to the specific one I wanted you to address; not to nitpik; just to see if there is a connection to "community standards" [Hypothetical Sociopath speaking now] So okay, murder and thievery affect your life and property if they happen to you or yours. If I leave you alone, why should you care what I do to the guy on the next block?

You don't have to care. But you may be asked to sit on a jury.

That is a legitimate role of government to step in and see that such a thief/murderer is sentenced.

This is not a difficult concept. There is a clear victim during a robbery/murder. Not so much with a person dressing in their birthday suit.

 

[turnandshoot4]

I lived in Europe in the late eighties. Billboards showing topless women were common. At public swimming pools, women who didn't wear tops outnumbered women who did. In Greece, at the beach, I saw very few tops.

Prohibiting a woman from going shirtless but not a man is the exact same principle as requiring women to wear bhurkas. The difference is only in degree.

Just in case no one saw this. Simply amazing. Great post.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You don't have to care. But you may be asked to sit on a jury.

That is a legitimate role of government to step in and see that such a thief/murderer is sentenced.

This is not a difficult concept. There is a clear victim during a robbery/murder. Not so much with a person dressing in their birthday suit.

Not a difficult concept, no, but I'm wondering where we draw the line, theoretically speaking, which was why I phrased the (hypothetical) question the way I did. In terms of society, why should we, as individuals care if someone else is done an injury? Isn't that between the perpetrator of the injury and the injured party? What stake do the rest of us have in a personal situation between two parties?

 

[Johnny C]

I just shake my head sometimes.

, I guess I just dont understand the humanist viewpoint...

Sure men and women are "equals", but they arent "the same"

 

[shibumiseeker]

I just shake my head sometimes.

, I guess I just dont understand the humanist viewpoint...

Sure men and women are "equals", but they arent "the same"

Seperate but equal?

 

[Fargo]

Seperate but equal?

When it comes to waving your privates around in public, YES. Are you going the next step and wanting unisex open bathrooms and changing rooms?

 

[dross]

I didn't realize men were allowed to wave their privates around.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Getting away from other examples to the specific one I wanted you to address; not to nitpik; just to see if there is a connection to "community standards" [Hypothetical Sociopath speaking now] So okay, murder and thievery affect your life and property if they happen to you or yours. If I leave you alone, why should you care what I do to the guy on the next block?

You don't have to care. But you may be asked to sit on a jury.

That is a legitimate role of government to step in and see that such a thief/murderer is sentenced.

This is not a difficult concept. There is a clear victim during a robbery/murder. Not so much with a person dressing in their birthday suit.

Not a difficult concept, no, but I'm wondering where we draw the line, theoretically speaking, which was why I phrased the (hypothetical) question the way I did. In terms of society, why should we, as individuals care if someone else is done an injury? Isn't that between the perpetrator of the injury and the injured party? What stake do the rest of us have in a personal situation between two parties?

Another excellent question. What stake do we have? That the murderer or thief might continue and that we could well be the next intended target.

A bazillion years ago, I learned of something called the Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant), stating in effect, "You should perform no act which you cannot at the same time will into universal law." There are, of course, faults with this as with any theory, but following it out, you as the Hypothetical Sociopath (HS) may choose to rob my neighbor. I cannot condone your doing so unless I can at the same time say that everyone should steal whatever s/he wishes, whenever s/he wishes. I can't agree with allowing the HS to kill indiscriminately unless I can agree with everyone else doing so. The problems with both are obvious. Conversely, I can't see a problem with anyone (Rosie O'Donnell,etc. excepted) choosing what, if anything, to wear. I can easily agree that everyone should choose what, if anything, s/he will wear on any given day.

Hell, much to our collective chagrin, most of us have seen this guy:

Is what he's wearing odd? Sure. Is it societally acceptable for an adult to wear diapers, a Reba McIntire wig, and faux-KISS makeup while carrying a toy gun in public? Maybe on Halloween. Maybe. Is there (or should there be) any law against it? Not a chance. He's doing no harm to anyone. Interestingly enough, the only other people in the picture seem to be completely ignoring him, rather than rushing off to buy their own diapers and toy guns. Could I agree with this as universal law? Maybe. All I have to say is that if someone else wants to, that's his/her choice, but I'm done changing messy diapers until my grandchildren are born!

Sorry if I missed doing so before, but have I answered your question now?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I just shake my head sometimes.

, I guess I just dont understand the humanist viewpoint...

Sure men and women are "equals", but they arent "the same"

Nope. Their rights are, though. Or at least they should be.

 

[shibumiseeker]

When it comes to waving your privates around in public, YES. Are you going the next step and wanting unisex open bathrooms and changing rooms?

Now <there's> a cogent argument!

 

[Bill of Rights]

When it comes to waving your privates around in public, YES. Are you going the next step and wanting unisex open bathrooms and changing rooms?

Sure, as long as the option exists to have privacy if someone chooses to do so. Why not? Or do you favor a law requiring separate facilities by gender? (AFAIK, it's that way now only by common practice, but I could be mistaken. Feel free to let me know if I am.)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Another excellent question. What stake do we have? That the murderer or thief might continue and that we could well be the next intended target.

A bazillion years ago, I learned of something called the Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant), stating in effect, "You should perform no act which you cannot at the same time will into universal law." There are, of course, faults with this as with any theory, but following it out, you as the Hypothetical Sociopath (HS) may choose to rob my neighbor. I cannot condone your doing so unless I can at the same time say that everyone should steal whatever s/he wishes, whenever s/he wishes. I can't agree with allowing the HS to kill indiscriminately unless I can agree with everyone else doing so. The problems with both are obvious. Conversely, I can't see a problem with anyone (Rosie O'Donnell,etc. excepted) choosing what, if anything, to wear. I can easily agree that everyone should choose what, if anything, s/he will wear on any given day.

Hell, much to our collective chagrin, most of us have seen this guy:

Is what he's wearing odd? Sure. Is it societally acceptable for an adult to wear diapers, a Reba McIntire wig, and faux-KISS makeup while carrying a toy gun in public? Maybe on Halloween. Maybe. Is there (or should there be) any law against it? Not a chance. He's doing no harm to anyone. Interestingly enough, the only other people in the picture seem to be completely ignoring him, rather than rushing off to buy their own diapers and toy guns. Could I agree with this as universal law? Maybe. All I have to say is that if someone else wants to, that's his/her choice, but I'm done changing messy diapers until my grandchildren are born!

Sorry if I missed doing so before, but have I answered your question now?

Blessings,
Bill

Very nicely, thank you. Now I have more questions. When, in this society, has there ever been a time when a "community" didn't adopt standards that placed limits on conduct the "community" felt wasn't proper? Have we been violating the universal ideals (you and others) most of us favor for our entire existence as a nation? (Didn't mean the original the way it sounded. I believe in universal ideals, too, just not exactly the same ones you do, apparently)

Once again, I'm trying to pin down the differences between "God-given rights" and "community standards".

 

[dross]

Relatively recently in history, breasts weren't considered as sexual as they are now. The idea that they are the same as exposing the sexual organs is silly.

I also think that we're silly about exposing sexual organs. It's one thing to display yourself in an aroused state engaging in sexual behavior in public, and quite another to momentarily become exposed for a good reason.

In Europe, it's pretty common at the beach for people to show up in their clothes, then change into their suits at the beach in the open. For a moment, they are fully exposed. Big deal.

Also, in Germany it was acceptable and legal to urinate by the side of a road. You just had to turn your back to the road. Very sensible. In this country in some jurisdictions, urinating with your back turned to the public can put you on a sex offender list for the rest of your life.

I think we have more important things to worry about than little Suzy or little Chuckie getting a look at someone's boobies or pee-pee.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Relatively recently in history, breasts weren't considered as sexual as they are now. The idea that they are the same as exposing the sexual organs is silly.

I also think that we're silly about exposing sexual organs. It's one thing to display yourself in an aroused state engaging in sexual behavior in public, and quite another to momentarily become exposed for a good reason.

In Europe, it's pretty common at the beach for people to show up in their clothes, then change into their suits at the beach in the open. For a moment, they are fully exposed. Big deal.

Also, in Germany it was acceptable and legal to urinate by the side of a road. You just had to turn your back to the road. Very sensible. In this country in some jurisdictions, urinating with your back turned to the public can put you on a sex offender list for the rest of your life.

I think we have more important things to worry about than little Suzy or little Chuckie getting a look at someone's boobies or pee-pee.

We may, in fact, have more important things to worry about, but apparently the majority of the community doesn't feel the same way you do. I'm trying to figure out how long there has been this wholesale trampling of "rights" and why the Founders didn't do something about it at the time.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I'd find it less offensive if the women went shirtless and the men covered up.

I'm OK with that.

Sounds a lot like general programming on most television stations.

 

[dross]

We may, in fact, have more important things to worry about, but apparently the majority of the community doesn't feel the same way you do. I'm trying to figure out how long there has been this wholesale trampling of "rights" and why the Founders didn't do something about it at the time.

The founders didn't have the monopoly on rights. The fact that they often didn't live up to the words they wrote and signed doesn't limit the Constitution's protection of rights - enumerated AND unenumerated - it just reveals the shortcomings of men, the very thing the Constitution was created to mitigate.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Relatively recently in history, breasts weren't considered as sexual as they are now. The idea that they are the same as exposing the sexual organs is silly.

I also think that we're silly about exposing sexual organs. It's one thing to display yourself in an aroused state engaging in sexual behavior in public, and quite another to momentarily become exposed for a good reason.

In Europe, it's pretty common at the beach for people to show up in their clothes, then change into their suits at the beach in the open. For a moment, they are fully exposed. Big deal.

Also, in Germany it was acceptable and legal to urinate by the side of a road. You just had to turn your back to the road. Very sensible. In this country in some jurisdictions, urinating with your back turned to the public can put you on a sex offender list for the rest of your life.

I think we have more important things to worry about than little Suzy or little Chuckie getting a look at someone's boobies or pee-pee.

It goes back to the invention of the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Following the social more's of the area you are in to best you can just shows you have at least the minimum of common sense and respect for the culture in which you are immersed for the locals who have you out numbered a million to one, to allow you to live.

Acting like an ignorant stupid disrespectful yahoo may be a compliment to the chef with out the slightest change other than company and geography. There's a million examples only the most ignorant and arrogant of fools thinks his own reality floats about him like a bubble where ever he roams and people's behaviour means the same where ever he goes.

Do what you want at home but at my house flaunting your pee pee around will get yer poo poo kicked at the least.

When in Europe, I don't give a crap what they do or any one else does.

 

[rambone]

Not a difficult concept, no, but I'm wondering where we draw the line, theoretically speaking, which was why I phrased the (hypothetical) question the way I did. In terms of society, why should we, as individuals care if someone else is done an injury? Isn't that between the perpetrator of the injury and the injured party? What stake do the rest of us have in a personal situation between two parties?

Contrary to the mocking that people give to my side, people that believe in limited government like myself do not support total anarchy. One proper role of government is to bring legal justice to those who bring harm to others.

The stake that the rest of us have, in punishing a murderer, is that the person (properly convicted) is unfit to live in society. He is not capable of respecting others' life, liberty & property.

Very nicely, thank you. Now I have more questions. When, in this society, has there ever been a time when a "community" didn't adopt standards that placed limits on conduct the "community" felt wasn't proper? Have we been violating the universal ideals (you and others) most of us favor for our entire existence as a nation? (Didn't mean the original the way it sounded. I believe in universal ideals, too, just not exactly the same ones you do, apparently)

Once again, I'm trying to pin down the differences between "God-given rights" and "community standards".

Which of these do you feel more strongly about protecting? Rights, or Communal Standards? Which one should trump the other, in areas of overlap?

What happens when the Communal Standards force you to wear a bag over your head? Maybe then we will realize that telling people what to wear is, and always was, an illegitimate function of government.

Communal Standards should not be dictated by the government. This should be obvious in a time when the Government found to be so disagreeable by so many of us. Why give them more power to tell us how to live?

 

[Fargo]

Sure, as long as the option exists to have privacy if someone chooses to do so. Why not?

I give up.

 

[Eddie]

It goes back to the invention of the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Following the social more's of the area you are in to best you can just shows you have at least the minimum of common sense and respect for the culture in which you are immersed for the locals who have you out numbered a million to one, to allow you to live.

Acting like an ignorant stupid disrespectful yahoo may be a compliment to the chef with out the slightest change other than company and geography. There's a million examples only the most ignorant and arrogant of fools thinks his own reality floats about him like a bubble where ever he roams and people's behaviour means the same where ever he goes.

Do what you want at home but at my house flaunting your pee pee around will get yer poo poo kicked at the least.

When in Europe, I don't give a crap what they do or any one else does.

This reminds me of a fable I once read. It went something like this:

Citizen: Our market is the largest marketplace in the world.
Traveller: Oh, not really, I've seen several that are larger.

Citizen: Well, our market may not be the biggest, but it certainly is the best.
Traveller: Oh, I disagree, you see the market in Actium is far better because...

They buried the traveller at dusk.