waht said:Lol. Busted!
MysticDude said:Wow, can't believe that something like this happened! The guy wanting to take a picture was so funny haha. That lady was so determined to get the guy arrested hahahahaha!
DaveC426913 said:Why does the dude not do up his fly once he's busted?
leroyjenkens said:People should be allowed to be completely naked in public. But of course, America isn't a free country, and the constitution is regularly ignored.
DaveC426913 said:Total straw man. Stay on topic.
leroyjenkens said:A strawman towards who? Part of my response was on topic, which lead to the other things I said.
But your entire post is off topic.
DaveC426913 said:This thread is about indecent exposure.
DaveC426913 said:This thread is about indecent exposure. You want to talk about legalized public nudity. Apples and oranges.
rootX said:How so it is indecent ... from the video, seems like people in it lacked maturity. Taking pictures/videos of naked body parts is what an elementary kid would do, not an adult.
rootX said:How so it is indecent ... from the video, seems like people in it lacked maturity. Taking pictures/videos of naked body parts is what an elementary kid would do, not an adult.
That's not how things work. The Constitution endows the people with certain rights. What the government can't do is violate those rights. To show that the criminalization of public exposure is a violation of the Constitution, you must argue that a specific Constitutionally protected right is being denied to you.hamster143 said:There's nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to ban people from showing their bodily parts to others.
DaveC426913 said:This thread is about indecent exposure. You want to talk about legalized public nudity. Apples and oranges.
In that case, what protects us from the government making us all wear identical uniforms?That's not how things work. The Constitution endows the people with certain rights. What the government can't do is violate those rights. To show that the criminalization of public exposure is a violation of the Constitution, you must argue that a specific Constitutionally protected right is being denied to you.
Gokul43201 said:The Constitution endows the people with certain rights. What the government can't do is violate those rights. To show that the criminalization of public exposure is a violation of the Constitution, you must argue that a specific Constitutionally protected right is being denied to you.
leroyjenkens said:The woman was outraged at something that shouldn't be illegal. The way you're so ardently denouncing my comment makes it seem like you want to just immediately stifle that specific discussion.
Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.leroyjenkens said:The woman was outraged at something that shouldn't be illegal.
DaveC426913 said:Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.
Got it.
DaveC426913 said:Exposing your penis through your pants and pushing it against a bystander. You think that should be legal.
?hamster143 said:Would you agree that simply exposing the penis does not result in any physical harm to any person present?
You will not win a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate that the government abridged your rights. On the other hand, the government will argue that through this law it is providing for the general welfare of its constituents, a responsibility that it derives directly from the Constitution.hamster143 said:The Congress can't just go left and right penalizing things like indecent exposure just because legislators are morally opposed to it.
How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?DaveC426913 said:Lawful boundaries betwen people regarding public behaviour go well beyond physical harm.
Gokul43201 said:How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?
I don't think anyone is arguing for nonconsentual contact. I think the only thing being defended so far is the right to public nudity.jarednjames said:Depends on whether or not you want to bring the whole "should children be exposed to public nudity" and people pressing their sexual organs against children?
Gokul43201 said:I don't think anyone is arguing for nonconsentual contact. I think the only thing being defended so far is the right to public nudity.
Absolutely. In this case, it is tantamount to sexual assualt.Gokul43201 said:How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?
Gokul43201 said:You will not win a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate that the government abridged your rights.
I think there is a good point here (crowded subway versus isolated park bench), but I don't see value in the line of reasoning that something is justified because society thinks so.DaveC426913 said:There is a place for public nudity, but society has ruled that the subway isn't it. The law merely obliges.