Posted on 07/23/2008 1:54:04 AM PDT by goldstategop
In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to "show me yours." When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.
Why did cops hide in the shadows to arrest a man no one but they could see?
On last week's "20/20", Dr. Marty Klein pointed out that the police weren't protecting children.
"There were no children anywhere in sight. In fact, there were no adults anywhere in sight."
Klein says it's part of "America's War on Sex."
"American society attempts to restrict what adults can do, what adults can see ... more than any other industrial country."
Ken Giles was jogging in a park in Johnson City, Tenn., when, as he put it, "nature called." He went off the trail to go take care of business. Then an undercover agent "put the badge in my face and told me that I was under arrest. I just thought I was in trouble for urinating in public."
It was much more humiliating than that. The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex. But the police went beyond arrests. Before anyone was convicted, they posted the names, addresses and photos of the men.
Giles's wife saw his picture on the news. Then his employer fired him. "When I lost my job ... my wife was so upset that she had a ... a major heart attack."
Another man named by the police killed himself.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says he has no sympathy for such sex offenders. "There's not a presumption of confidentiality when you're arrested and charged," he told me.
It's intrusive enough when police arrest someone in a public place, but worse when the police turn their sights indoors, to places where people choose to be exposed to sex.
Chippendales, the male burlesque show, has toured the country for years. Their show is not as racy as you might think. The men dance, show off their bodies and flirt with some women in the audience. There's no nudity.
Chippendales never had a problem with authorities -- until it came to Lubbock, Texas. Ten minutes before their show, the police told the dancers, "Don't ever simulate a sex act."
The dancers did their usual show and then ventured out into the crowd. The police then shut down the show and took the dancers to jail.
The crowd was angry. "City council sucks!" the audience shouted.
Mayor David Miller told me, "In the judgment of our police officers that night, they violated one portion or more of [the city's] ordinance."
What were the police protecting willing adult customers from?
"From these types of activities spilling over into their neighborhood."
Within a week of the Chippendales arrest, three murders occurred in Lubbock. Wouldn't those police officers have been better used elsewhere?
Some states have laws that creep right into the bedroom. In Alabama, legislators banned the sale of sex toys. That upset Dave Smith, whose wife owns Pleasures, "Your One Stop Romance Shop."
"In the state of Alabama I can buy a gun. I can carry it in my pocket. ... But if I buy this [sex toy], someone could get arrested!" Smith said.
The ACLU helped challenge the law. But an appeals court ruled that the politicians have a "legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex" -- in other words, masturbation -- because that may be "detrimental to the health and morality of the State."
Oddly, Pleasures is still in business because the law makes an exception if a sex toy is sold for a medical purpose. To buy a vibrator, customers need only answer yes to a questionnaire asking things like, "Have difficulty having an orgasm?"
I asked the Family Research Council's Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.
"The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys."
Give me a break.
Yeah, right.
I guess it all depends on the facts of the case. If the guy was alone and peeing when the cop arrested him, then he was doing as he said. That was what I got from the article.
Mark
I’m of the firm belief that
if you remove all the social “safety nets” that cushion the consequences for immoral behavior,
you’ll get a lot less of it (within a couple of generations, max)
without empowering the gov’t more than it needs to be.
Ah, yes - I have a lib brother in law that uses that line whenever someone mentions that communities have the right to enforce moral standards of behavior.
Wow... genius. We can’t enforce any standards of behavior lest we become the Taliban.
I defy you to name a law that doesn’t “impose morality”.
OTOH, I am brimming full of tolerance. And not only am I tolerant, I go to extremes to protect you and your right to practice your faith. But that doesn't give you the right to impose, culturally or psuedo-legally, your beliefs on me.
And there-in lies your problem. You don't know who your allies are, and always paint yourself into a corner.
Last time I hated anyone was the 6th grade, I think. Mike Banks beat me up and I hated him for it.
Oh wait, when I was 18, I hated this guy who my girlfriend dated after we broke up. But, I didn't even know the guy, so I don't know if that counts as true “hate.”
Nope. I hate no one. Unless you use the liberal definition of hate as disagreeing on something.
Where do you get the idea that I want to “ impose, culturally or psuedo-legally,” my beliefs on you? How does one impose beliefs culturally, anyway? Sounds pretty paranoid.
I know who my allies are. And they are not those who equate me with the Taliban, who were no better than Nazis, if you ask me.
I'm not trying to get semantical with you but there is a difference between morals and mores.
And there is a difference between imposing descriptively and prescriptively.
And there is a difference between signs and symbols.
If you act like the taliban, you will be treated like the taliban. So says society.
You mean a been devorced twice “carnal” so called Christian?
by presidential edict, contraception is being redefined as abortion, and no one got to vote on it.
Ben, you are mis-representing that.
So the “Christian taliban” label will be valid when churches start executing women in football stadiums.
Until then, it is a pejorative spewed by the ignorant.
Did you ever hear of the Scarlet Letter?
“Show me yours” sure dounds like entrapment to me. Her being topless isn’t the issue - it’s the bait. Her verbal enticement to reveal was entrapment, IMO.
Yeah. It’s a novel. I read it in high school. Bored me to tears. Don’t recall any executions, though. Might have spiced it up a bit and made it not so dull.
“....a fairly good Christian....”
LOL! Is that anything like a fairly good auto mechanic, bridgebulider or brainsurgeon?
Generally, when I start thinking I am a “fairly good” Christian I see room for improvement.
A very significant number want to outlaw contraception.
Likewise, among those that have an interest in what is going on in the homos' bedroom, there is a significant number who also have a interest in what is going on in the heteros' bedroom.
Years ago, I thought I was a very good Christian; that I had “arrived” and the tough part was behind me.
Then, I got married...........
I’m sure you know how it with those sluts.
Scarlet Letter - set in 1692 AD. (that’s Anno Dominae, the year of Our Lord)
And somehow this relates to equating modern day Christians with modern day Taliban?
Come now, you’re appearing ridiculous (worthy of ridicule).
"Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." -- H.L.Menken
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.