[Jhoffa_]

If the beastial sexual behavior (or any sexual behavior) were intentionally displayed to the public who could not reasonably traverse without encountering it, then I think an argument could be made that psychological duress was inflicted upon those who had to witness such actions, and a civil remedy was in order.

I fail to see where this breaches your "No force, no fraud" rule.

It would seem to fall under the "property right's" category.

I mean, after all.. who is "Government" to define what's moral and what's not? Who are they to tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property?

[Demidog]

The remedy to this problem is to recognize that it is possible to rape an animal and that it is a crime. Yes, it seems odd that one would say killing an animal is more acceptable than having sex with it. However, I do think that animals are to be afforded a semblance of respect and if we can arrest a man for cruelty to animals then certainly bestaility would be cruelty.

[OWK]

I mean, after all.. who is "Government" to define what's moral and what's not? Who are they to tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property?

You seem to misunderstand the notion of "civil remedy".

A civil action, is not a criminal action. Government would not move (in this specific situation) to restrain the individual's actions.

Instead, individuals who were actually harmed (psychologically or otherwise) by the action in question, would state their case before a civil court, and seek monetary damages pursuant to the harm caused.

The payment of civil damages to the injured parties by the offender, would do far more to curtail his activities than does the current "slap on the wrist" of a judicial system we have today.

[Zon]

I fail to see where this breaches your "No force, no fraud" rule.

You and failure are go hand in hand.

It would seem to fall under the "property right's" category.

Only a person can be a victim. If a person has been harmed they may file a claim ageist the agressor.  In regard to initiation of force, fraud and coercion used against a person, I offer this... The ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law  nullifies agenda law and ego law.

[Roscoe]

********************************************************

Scenario #1: While having his morning coffee, Marvin Middleclass happens to glance out his dining room window. His neighbor, Wally Whackjob, after digging a latrine in the front yard, uses it.

Marvin makes a telephone call, and soon Calvin Clipboard of the health department pays a visit. Whackjob tells Clipboard that there is a Constitutional right to keep an open latrine, then yells, "Personal property! Freedom!!!!" Clipboard writes Whackjob a citation, and tells him if the open latrine isn't filled in, the city will take care of it in and send him a bill.

No warrant, no trial.

*******************************************************

Scenario #2: While having his morning coffee, Marvin Middleclass happens to glance out his dining room window. His neighbor, Wally Whackjob, after digging a latrine in the front yard, uses it.

Marvin makes a telephone call, and eventually Zachary Zealot of the Libertarian Justice Services pays a visit. After talking to Whackjob, Zachary confronts Marvin. Taking a last drag from his roach, Zealot flicks it into the stinking latrine on the other side of the fence where it sizzles out. Turning his glassy glare towards Middleclass, Zealot says, "Hey, Man! It's like his property, so quit hassling him!! And don't call us no more!!! If you have a problem, take it to court!!!!"

*******************************************************