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.
Say what?
Once again, is the Scarlet Letter a sign or a symbol. And if the Scarlet Letter is not in fashion today, what is the modern equivalent.
You are, and....all of this seems like a pretty big deal to you. In your opinion, is there anything wrong with either public “Bath” houses or Romp rooms?
Let me tell you, I learned a long time ago that there is only one thing worse than being a queer, and that is being "queer bait".
I don't know what a romp room is, but I can sort of guess. I'm of the opinion that so long as any activities in those places are done behind closed doors and involve only consenting adults, the government should have no power to step in and interfere.
Thank you.
I’m puzzled by the “Bedroom Cops” addition to the title, when almost all the examples in the article involve sexual activity or nudity in public.
Please find a bathroom, Mr. Stossel. It’s not that hard - most ladies manage it all day long.
How dare you bring facts and reason to this hysterical thread.
Don’t you know church people lurk in your closet waiting for you do something of which they disapprove?
We do and should continue to have laws preventing sex and nudity in public places. The laws aren’t the problem. The fact the police in the cases mentioned were overzealous in trying to nab potential suspects is the problem.
I am a church goer. I also believe gov should stay out of everyones bedroom. God will judge in the end.
That being said I get flamed by a lot of church goers that I am an aborter because I had a vasectomy. But I tell them to butt out. My marriage is strong I have two kids and a smokin sex life. Maybe they are jealous. :>))
I have a baby in my closet (well, he’s 2-1/2 now ...) and that’s against the law, too.
Those who care in more than a formal way - “Well, now, that’s a sin.” - about what others do at home are few and far between, imo. However, I care a LOT about what people are doing in the public places I frequent. I’m a runner, and if I can make it through my workouts without whizzing in the park, so can the putz in the article. I think some guys just want an excuse to flash Mr. Wiggles in public.
I like that part of the story but the rest alarms me.
Entrapment implies causing someone to commit a crime that they wouldn't have committed otherwise. We first have to decide if we agree that a crime was committed. It seems like this was not a crime from what I know of the situation.
Why Madame, what do you mean a horseless society? I own four of the critters, and a carriage too, don't you have any? I can let you have an aging Hanoveraner of good character at a very good price. Rides and drives and even has a good jump left in him. He is ready to go and able to stay.
Now, if you have never been on or even around frightened horses, you will know exactly what Lady Astor meant. If on the other hand you are a city girl without much experience of horses why don't you go into Central Park and walk along the bridle paths at night and see what it is that frightens you the most.
Is this better? "Crackdown on gay sex was fruitful."
I’m basing my judgment on the fact that a police woman who says to a prospective john “100 bucks” is considered to have entrapped him if he agrees.
If the trou-drop is adjudged to not be a crime, the whole conversation is moot.
Have a great day!
ping
Then it won't happen. The result is hedonism. We have been sliding down this slope since the sixties, with no sign of amelioration.
Ref: Judge Bork's book "Slouching to Gomorra."
The Gay community calls it desensitization. Is that what you advocate?
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.