What are the consequences of flashing and how is it perceived by women?

[Gokul43201]

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?

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

But that doesn't answer the first part of my post. Should children be exposed to it?

 

[DaveC426913]

How far beyond? Should public exposure be expected to cause any kind of harm to a normal human being?

Absolutely. In this case, it is tantamount to sexual assualt.

Assault does not require physical harm; that is battery.

That's not the same thing as sitting on a bench on a park, naked, minding your own business.

There is a place for public nudity, but society has ruled that the subway isn't it. The law merely obliges.

 

[hamster143]

You will not win a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate that the government abridged your rights.

You can argue that the government lacks the statutory authority to pass the law. One of the best-known recent laws that were overturned on those grounds was the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

With public indecency, things are a bit murkier because the law against that is a state law.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a place for public nudity, but society has ruled that the subway isn't it. The law merely obliges.

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.

 

[JaredJames]

Should children be exposed to it?

I'm still looking for an answer on this one? No one wants to answer it for some reason.

You can argue whether or not public nudity should be allowed all you like, but this is a major factor and something that needs to be addressed if you're going to start claiming it should be legal.

 

[lisab]

Most people would have little to grumble about if someone wants to lay nekkid in the park, basking in the sun, burning his bum. It's wholesome.

Flashing your penis in a subway? That's not innocent public nudity and it's not wholesome; it's creepy.

 

[lisab]

I'm still looking for an answer on this one? No one wants to answer it for some reason.

You can argue whether or not public nudity should be allowed all you like, but this is a major factor and something that needs to be addressed if you're going to start claiming it should be legal.

Children exposed to nudes sunning in the park - sure.

Children exposed to a guy flashing on the subway - hell no, and I don't want to see it either.

The difference is the creep factor: it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Gokul43201]

You can argue that the government lacks the statutory authority to pass the law.

One of the best-known recent laws that were overturned on those grounds was the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

With public indecency, things are a bit murkier because the law against that is a state law.

Agreed.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

If not the people, who in a democratic society does get to decide what - for the people - is within the bounds of common decency?

 

[JaredJames]

Children exposed to nudes sunning in the park - sure.

Children exposed to a guy flashing on the subway - hell no, and I don't want to see it either.

The difference is the creep factor: it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Exactly, and this for me is the key here. There are far fewer situations where you can be nude and not considered creepy than where you are nude and creepy.

If you go somewhere that people sunbathe and there are nude bodies there, it's something you expect. But when walking down a high street you don't expect to be confronted with a bunch of nude figures.

 

[JaredJames]

If not the people, who in a democratic society does get to decide what - for the people - is within the bounds of common decency?

Would you believe it, it's the government voted in by the people.

The simple answer is if you don't like laws such as those against nudity, fight to get someone who will stand against them into office, or start a lawsuit against to fight against them.

 

[Newai]

I would like to point out that this wasn't just an exposure incident:

“I’m like why is this person pressing up against me? Then I realize you have all this (expletive) space here. Then I see his penis out! That’s it!”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/23/tables-turned-on-alleged-nyc-subway-flasher/

Kinda sinks the whole "it's just nudity" argument.

 

[JaredJames]

Precisely. It's not just nudity here.

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

 

[Gokul43201]

If not the people, who in a democratic society does get to decide what - for the people - is within the bounds of common decency?

That's a legal argument. I thought we were debating a moral/rational argument. After all, slavery, institutional racism, sexism, blahism ... can be legally justified in that they were all simply expressions of the will of the majority. That doesn't provide a rational justification for them.

 

[zomgwtf]

Precisely. It's not just nudity here.

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

Perhaps some people do find it acceptable just as a majority society decided it's not acceptable and the law reflects that.

Cry about the constituition.

I don't talk to black people I see in a restaurant like:
"Boy fetch me a glass of wine."
for the same reason.
I mean no physical harm! Clearly I'm given this right being human!

 

[Gokul43201]

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

I believe you've shifted the burden to the wrong side. For a citizen living in a free society, anything that is not unacceptable should be considered acceptable. The question, therefore, should be: why should that be considered unacceptable?

 

[Newai]

Precisely. It's not just nudity here.

But even if it was just him standing with his wang out, why would that be considered acceptable?

Not acceptable. A man hanging his penis out and about is about his penis. This goes a bit beyond simple nudity. Still, in itself not necessarily a problem. Heck, a man fully naked on a city bus or subway, keeping to himself, shouldn't be a problem any more than one walking down a street.

Flashing, however, usually involves directing that "nudity" at someone. But as I said, it's not just nudity.

 

[hamster143]

?


Physical harm? Agreed. This has not conceded anything though. Lawful boundaries betwen people regarding public behaviour go well beyond physical harm.

Would you agree that I have no right to stand over you on the subway holding you in your seat with my knee, spitting my mucus on your face, shaking a porn mag in your face and screaming racial epithets?

No physical harm...

Holding me and spitting at me is clearly harmful. I'm okay with having laws against that. The rest is free speech.

 

[hamster143]

But that doesn't answer the first part of my post. Should children be exposed to it?

In my book, you can have a law against exposure to children, as long as you can round up experts and prove beyond reasonable doubt that a child can be harmed (in any meaningful sense of the word) by mere sight of a part of a human body.

 

[Newai]

In my book, you can have a law against exposure to children, as long as you can round up experts and prove beyond reasonable doubt that a child can be harmed (in any meaningful sense of the word) by mere sight of a part of a human body.

Well, in the cases of flashing, it's not just a sight. It's an erotic/sexual expression directed at another. There's a world of difference between children seeing a naked/semi-naked adult and a naked adult pointing his pencil at them.

 

[lisab]

Well, in the cases of flashing, it's not just a sight. It's an erotic/sexual expression directed another. There's a world of difference between children seeing a naked adult and a naked adult pointing his pencil at them.

Exactly. Flashing is completely different than a naked guy, just acting normal.

 

[DaveC426913]

Holding me and spitting at me is clearly harmful.

Nope. Neither will physically harm you, which was the criterion you asked me to accept.

I'm okay with having laws against that. The rest is free speech.

This is not the free speech. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?

 

[Gokul43201]

Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?

How would you define free speech?

 

[JaredJames]

How would you define free speech?

Well re-write it slightly:

The constitution does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?

I believe DaveC is referring to free speech as outlined by the constitution.

 

[Gokul43201]

DaveC is from Canada, I think hamster is from the US. So it's not clear that we are talking about what a specific country has codified as much as what (you or I think) any liberal democracy ought to protect.

 

[JaredJames]

DaveC is from Canada, I think hamster is from the US. So it's not clear that we are talking about what a specific country has codified as much as what (you or I think) any liberal democracy ought to protect.

Ah, I thought both were from the US. In which case, not a clue.

 

[hamster143]

Nope. Neither will physically harm you, which was the criterion you asked me to accept.

By physical harm I did not mean bodily injury. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. " John Stuart Mill, 1859. There's harm in preventing me from going about my own business. There's no harm in showing me a bodily part.

This is not the free speech. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want to whomever you want wherever you want. Why do people think this?

That's precisely what free speech means. Once again, only if the speech results in harm to others (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), can we criminalize that.

 

[DaveC426913]

By physical harm I did not mean bodily injury. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. " John Stuart Mill, 1859. There's harm in preventing me from going about my own business. There's no harm in showing me a bodily part.

Physical harm. There's lots of psychological and emotional harm.

Uttering death threats causing no physical harm either but it is also a crime.

That's precisely what free speech means. Once again, only if the speech results in harm to others (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), can we criminalize that.

No it does not. Screaming racial epithets in someone's face is grounds for assault under the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's lots of psychological and emotional harm.

Why should there be psychological or emotional harm from looking at a human body?