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.
Red Herring award of the day.
Answer=
________________ 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".
Misdirection seems to be your only real talent.
If you weren't such a hooty two shoes you would recognize my reply to be that I've never been there.
That include pedophiles?
But I don't think that a topless policewoman hunting down "gay" men is a legitimate or even rational use of a police force. Can't a person with a cell phone call the police if there is something illegal going on? Can't they just station a police officer at the park to be readily available for someone to go to--or even deter public sexual activity if this is a problem?
Also, I don't think the ever-expanding definition of "sexual offender" is a good thing and such laws desperately need to be restricted to people who actually did harm. I'm not interested if someone oogled at someone else, "exposed" himself, was in possession of pictures, or had consentual sex with a 15 year old. Sure, communities can fine people, or set laws to deter such behavior, but the harsh sexual offender laws should be restricted to those who actually did physical harm to another person. In fact, it's a pain to figure out who, if anyone, I should be worried about living near me because the registries are full of non-threatening offenders.
I really do not understand why it is Government's role to ensure people do not masturbate, although apparently certain towns think that it is alright if Government states that it is not in the best interest of people to use sex toys ....goodness ....that is Big Brother at his best
Aren't the laws stated against public masturbation, and public sales of sex toys? I think a community has a right to regulate public behavior and if a sex shop can open up its doors, or what it can display in its storefront. If a someone wants to use such items in their own home, I don't think that's even enforceable.
Just can't seem to answer a question. You should be in politics.
It's interesting how the gay community realizes what libertarians don't. Exposure to sexual perversion makes you more likely to commit sexual perversion. Behavior usually follows exposure--it's what every ad agency knows. Sure, not everyone will get hooked, but some will that otherwise wouldn't.
I think local government has reason to restrain public acts to limit exposure and reduce the effects of subsequent acts.
Was the police officer even following the law correctly? What was the law anyway? I'm pretty sure it wasn't "urinating in public". It was probably "public exposure". If that is the case, who did he expose to? The police officer? They don't count. I think this is more of a case of "dumb cop" instead of "dumb law".
Not hardly, you just don’t like my answers.
A sentiment I've seen expressed on this site from time to time (though thankfully, not too much on this thread).
Most of us fear the Global Warming movement because we know it can lead to tremendously expanded government power. After all, according to the greenies, nearly every aspect of your life affects your "carbon footprint." Where you eat, where you work, where you live, etc. Since conservatives are supposed to stand for individual liberty and limited government, they rightly view Al Gore and his ilk with a lot of suspicion.
And yet government regulation of private, consensual behavior for the sake of "protecting morality" or "community standards"- concepts MUCH broader than Global Warming - doesn't seem to bother some conservatives a whit.
You do mean standards for public behavior, I presume?
Both of the examples you gave were for public matters, so I thought that was what you meant. Or do you also believe the community should be able to enforce standards for private behavior, behind closed doors, between consenting adults?
There is a big difference between being desensitized and being overly sensitive.
When it comes to sex crimes some think anything goes.
Maybe they were bored and the woman lost a bet?
Of course, in other places, you can be arrested (for solicitation, even though sex or money is never mentioned) for simply talking to a woman on a street corner (this has happened repeatedly in MO).
Wow. Glad I don’t live in Missouri. I have a habit of talking to friendly strangers.
I may have been overly broad, but not by much... KC (both MO and KS) have a history of well publicized prostitution stings, and there's all sorts of press coverage of the arrests, announcing of the names of those arrested, etc... Then, far fewer than 1/2 of the cases are ever prosecuted because there was simply no evidence for the initial arrest. Simply being in an area known for prostitution isn't enough for a conviction. But I guess it's often enough for probably cause. There have been some law suits over it, but it still goes on.
Mark
no.
“Please find a bathroom”
You missed the point.
He was charged with a sex crime for urinating in public. See the difference?
That's an unfortunate error, if it's accurately reported. However, the author has chosen to use this as an example of excessive or egregious (in his opinion) restriction on public sex. He seems to believe there's a relationship.
And perhaps he's right. People's eliminating in public is gross. People's screwing in public is gross.
Not much, one precludes the other. Check you local schools curriculum, I have first hand experience. It is all about preparing you children for the new sexual revolution.
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.