A post by Looms, on a thread I didn't want to derail, sparked this topic:



Who wants to live in a red light distict all of the time? I mean, who is really hurt by viewing sex? Penises? Anything? How about sex on public park benches? Thoughts anyone?

Decent vs. indecent is determined by morals alone? Do you feel comfortable allowing nudity on network television on all those people who find it immoral and indecent?

The problem really isn't the episode as much as it is the media's constant replaying of the incident. But that is another topic, for another time.

Another problem was the timing. This wasn't a cable channel, it wasn't a documentary/drama/comedy/movie. This was a halftime show at a sporting event, which over it's 50 plus year history has had standards regarding displays of questionable material. No family was expecting this, and THAT is a big problem. Parents were not allowed the time to explain to their kids the scene, nor were they allowed to choose (which is what LOOMS seems to be saying - we all get to choose) if they wanted their kids to watch it, much less themselves.

There are problems with moral equivalency, and it is a slippery slope. If nudity is allowed, why not one step further to violence (like there isn't enough of that already.) Where does it stop? Just because one group of people find something "okay" (NAMBLA comes to mind), does that make it acceptable for the rest of America?

We are a society built on laws, which were built on (in my opinion) a code of absolute morality. But again, another topic....

You are going for the extreme there.

It is about anatomic parts not being referred to as something to cover up all the time. Its about unclenching a society that has serious issues with its sexuality.

Children need to learn that sexuality is totally normal. But in a society in which the showing of a breast is a big deal those children may not become self-conscious about themselves.

To conduct the act of sexual intercourse in public, there is nothing wrong to do it at night, secluded, somewhere romantic instead all the time in the bedroom. But it shouldn't be displayed so obviously that other people are forced to see it.

Rules of conduct should suffice to ensure this, decency laws have a touch of puritan backward morality.

Why? What's extreme? I'm simply going with the quote and following the logic. Rules of conduct are also rules based on morals and ethics. We could call it 'decency' or 'rules of conduct', whichever you wish.

I see my sexuality as totally normal, I am raising my kids to view it the same. Others can raise their children how they wish.

Exactly. They should be able to raise their kids how they wish. If that means they would let their child play in the summer naked?
Or young women sunbathing topless. This shouldn't be prohibited by law.

This dident hurt me or anyone else, however, I feel its offensive..

I mean, its her EDITED TO REMOVE NON-MEDICAL TERM FOR ANATOMY, its not nothing special, and I dont really care, I think it was over-hyped..

however, if i had a son or daughter i dont want them seeing that until at the age i'd feel content at. People freak out cause kids are having sex so early in their lives, almost to the point where its not physically healthy. I believe crap like this and the stuff sometimes shown on public cable causes that in society. However, you shouldent grow your kids on the TV's morals as their are none..so..Decency laws or not, i dont think its appropriate to see a girls knockers on tv during an event which doesent call for it.

Public morals are natural complement of all laws : they are by themselves an entire code.- Napoleon

Could we steer this a bit away from the breast incident, please? I really just wish to address ALL decency standards and laws pertaining to public conduct, in general. Not Janet's breast.

Well how about MTV for starters, I know parents who won't let their kids watch the channel because they've felt it has gotten to be so "moraless".

I watch it, and people sing about sex, being "gangsta" and the vidoes might as well be pornos because thats all it really amounts to. (except the women have clothes on).

But you know, it seems like its always about the children

and I'm not saying MTV is bad entertainment, maybe just tone it down a bit. It seems like every year a new barrier needs to be broken, a new controversy started, so they can get ratings and the singers get attention. It just gets stupid after a while..

When it came to decency and t.v., many of my fellow liberals would state:"if you don't like it, don't watch it" This whole incident breaks that reasonable stance in that people who wish not to subject their children to that kind of material are not given a choice. So now instead of if you don't like it, don't watch it-we have, watch us, because you never know! This is more of a case than a bunch of prudes becoming upset.

This is the crux of the issue. Yes, children need to learn that sexuality is normal. But they need to learn this from their parents. Not from the halftime show on network tv, and not from the press who continually repeat it.



Can you elaborate on how rules of conduct are not based on decency? What do you use as a standard to determine rules of conduct, if everyone's idea of morality and decency is relative?

No one is "hurt" by viewing parts of the body that everyone has and everyone knows look like, just offended. As we all know, there is no right to never be offended. No one is "hurt" by viewing sex, just offended. Seeing naked people has absolutely no correlation to having sex at a young age, GreenRiver. I really don't know how you can parallel seeing someone naked and/or having sex with acting out on one's own natural desires and instincts.

To answer the question posed by the title, yes. Absolutely. No one should have the right to restrict me or anyone else to what I can and cannot view based on what offends them. Talk about infringing on someone else's rights... I think the "community standard" rule also has to go, because once again, the bottom line is that no one else should be able to restrict what I can and cannot view simply because it personally offends them. Be it ten people or ten million, they are entitled to their views and I am to mine, but their opinion on moral matters should never influence me. Hell, I find Bill O'Reilly offensive, and suppose I lived in a community where the majority of residents echoed my opinion. Does that give me the right to tell Mr. So-and-So that he is no longer allowed to watch it? Or even better, that it shouldn't be allowed to be broadcast?

People who are offended by certain displays of sexuality and/or nudity need to get over themselves. Nudity has never harmed anyone. Even the children.

Edited to address LGM: Children are born knowing sexuality is normal. It's their parents who teach them otherwise, who teach them that their bodies are dirty and sex outside of marriage, between anyone other than a man and woman in the missionary position is wrong. If children knew sexuality was normal, then they wouldn't care if nudity was shown on TV, would they?

Furthermore, "rules of conduct" aren't exclusively decency laws, which was what Sevac was discussing. If someone's actions hurt someone else, there should be laws against that action. Decency laws stem from morality, pure and simple. You are right, everyone's idea of morality is subjective. That is why it's unfair to have laws that dictate them.

THat's most interesting. There are actual places where anyone can go and walk around naked freely.
Money would certainly be saved by having one urinal, next to a toilet, in the corner of every school and store instead of privacy bathrooms. Let's start there! No one has ever been hurt by watching another human being eliminate.

So you are saying that it should be allowed to for a man to go up to people and expose himself to them? Because it sure sounds like it..

Oh and if that is the case, if I expose myself to a female co-worker at work, sexual harassment laws should not apply, right?

Then respectfully, you don't understand that males are stimulated visually first, emotionally second.

The issue isn't (in my opinion) one of whether or not someone is taking away one's right to view nudity.

This is an issue of whether or not someone has the right to place nudity in front of my family without warning.

I take my chances if I let my kids sit and watch showtime all day long. There are standards set by the FCC regarding nudity on network tv, and I trust them to hold stations to those standards.

No one is taking away your right to view it; someone took away my right to decide for myself what is right for my family.

Well, yes it should be. As well as it should be allowed for them to beat him down for being obnoxious, repulsive and disgusting.



I think your place of business can dictate rules like that very well on their own, without government interference.

Mrs. Pigpen, my entire point was concerning decency laws and television/videos. This is all done in the privacy of one's own home.

Furthermore, if someone feels comfortable enough to use one of these public toilets, so what? It's the same as spitting to me, through a different hole. I wouldn't use them, but they can if they want to. I like privacy while taking care of my bodily functions. Anyways, there are health reasons for private restrooms as well. There are no health reasons for censoring TV.

Again, to sleeper, the entire context of my post was concerning TV and decency laws. I was not referring to viewing someone nude in person. And even if I was, the penis is a part of the body. It is the same as the hand, the foot, the nose, which for one reason or another society has decided it needs to censor. If someone exposed themselves to me, I'd give them a weird look and be on about my way. It's a penis. Big deal.

LGM, the issue is not whether people have the right to place nudity in front of you and your family without warning. It is about whether your morals have the right to dictate what anyone else is able to view.

And you are completely wrong about someone taking away my right to view it, as I did not catch it when it happened, and during the replays, it was blurred. That is a prime example of someone else's morals determining what is appropriate for me to view. But this thread is not about Janet Jackson.

Just a curious question: how would seeing nudity hurt your family?

Sorry, didn't see the edit.

1. Children should know sexuality is normal. Children should also know the repercussions of sexual activity, and most do not have the ability to make life-altering decisions at the age of 14. All they see is the act, the physical pleasure. They don't see the disease, the pregnancy, the abortion, the difficulty associated with children raising children. If you're going to allow TV to show nudity, then I would argue they have a responsibility to show the entire process, and not just the glorification of sex.

Rules of conduct (or whatever you want to call them) are ultimately based on one person's (or a group of people's) morality. If you boil any and every rule/law to it's simplist element, it is quite simply one's morality.

And without some basic standard of morality, we will continue this trend towards indecency and immorality.

The repercussions of sexual activity? There are risks associated with everything. Why is sex any different? Shoot, you can get more dangerous diseases touching a doorknob. Talk to them about the risks if you want to scare them into never having sex. Requiring a network to show "the entire process" because they show a nude person is absolutely ridiculous. Who said everyone who's naked is always doing something sexual? What "entire process" are you talking about? They could be bathing, for christssakes.

Again, I'll state that rules of conduct - meaning the rules that dictate how one is expected to behave - are quite different from indecency laws when it comes to television, which is the topic of this thread. Allowed behavior = allowed TV programming? I don't think so.



Incorrect. I am unable to think of any other laws, besides indecency laws, that are laws not because something is just "offensive," but because they harm someone. That has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with hurting someone. Laws against homicide? You're taking someone's life. Laws against robbery? You are hurting someone by taking their belongings. Laws against arson? Treason? Speed limits? Seat belts?

The only laws I can think of that are based purely on somoene else's "morals" are indecency laws.



That's funny, because I haven't noticed any such trend. Anyhow, that's a separate thread.

I don’t see anything wrong with nudity, but I wouldn’t want to live in a red light district or nudist colony. My child isn’t harmed by the sight of my body, or my husband’s, or his brother’s, so I don’t expect that he would experience some sort of irreparable damage at the sight of anyone else's body. Actually, my children have seen many many real naked bodies in their short lives and it hasn't seemed to harm them (I hope). But I do believe in some standards for public decency. I would like to decide for myself, and my children, what type of entertainment we view and what type of environment we enter. I don’t wish to be confronted by naked people at the store, in the streets, or on television (except if it fits into the plot, on an adult show, which I understand will be adult beforehand).

Some parents find nothing wrong with exposing their young ones to extreme graphic violence. I do. I think it harms them at a subliminal level. Parents are all responsible for the types of individuals they bring into society. I respect other’s rights to raise their children how they wish (assuming it is unabusive). I don’t begrudge the person who doesn’t wish his/her child to be exposed to nudity. I certainly don’t want my children exposed to graphic sexual imagery in real life or on the screen. I shouldn’t have to explain why or provide evidence that this is harmful. It is my right, as a parent to raise my children as I see fit.

I may not have the right to not be offended, but I understand that living in a society carries with it the burden of behaving decently (in public) according to the standards that society imposes. It also means that certain broadcasts into the home, which are expected to be tailored towards the general public, according to their standards of conduct, should abide by that standard. Anyone can cater to almost any prurient interest they want, whenever they want…. but expecting to wave it in the face of the general public without warning, at any time, is a violation of that understanding.

no, but having them EDITED TO REMOVE NON-MEDICAL TERM FOR ANATOMICAL FUNCTION each other does. So does the vulgar dancing of the singers, it's sexy, it has the desired effect. our society now is all about sex, thats why people have sex at a young age. If you dont believe that just look at the dresses from 1950-2000-they've gotten...?


As for having a choice to watch it i agree with whoever wrote that, because we are given a choice whether or not to watch it.

Dodging the issue by making a funny remark eh?

The flaw in your response is that beating that person as retribution is assault. We are taking about exposing ones self.

If people are going to say exposing themselves is acceptable, then there would be no reason to reciprocate, right?

I was not dodging anything. The remark being funny was a side effect, it was intended exactly as it was said.

I am a big fan of common sense. While it can't be legislated, most people do posess it, at least to the extent where they know what will get them hit. If they don't, well, there is always time to learn.

I guess to me, personal responsibility does not only apply to having your welfare check taken away. If someone is asking for a beatdown, and they receive it, I say that's their problem. This is the principles and personal philosophy section, is it not?

Really? More dangerous than HIV, herpes, Hepatitis? Maybe as bad, but hardly worse than a death sentence, don't you think?



Talking to children about the pleasures of sex without discussing the possible consequences is not what any responsible parent should do. You shouldn't discuss this with them until they are old enough to understand that their actions have ramifications, beyond what TV shows. Surely you aren't suggesting that it's okay for kids to see nudity before they are old enough to understand the context, are you? As far as your "bathing", comment, you have totally ignored the male visual stimulus response, not to mention the fact that this discussion is about nudity as it relates to decency laws, not just nudity for nudity's sake.



So now we are ignoring the fact that children imitate what they see on TV? The matrix, wrestling, cartoons all depicit violence. Clearly, your opinion is contrary to the American Psychological Association's opinion. Do you somehow expect that behavior isn't influenced by what children see?



Again, television does affect children. At least a John Hopkins University psychiatrist, the Harvard Center for Health Communication, and the Harvard School of Public Health think so.

The issue is also one of parental involvement. If parents are not there to monitor children's programming, and it's influence, who is left to do so?

***
Excuse the edit, some things didn't make sense. Which won't be the last time.

This is how I feel about sexuality in general...It's your business, I have no right to intrude on it. That said, it's your business keep it out of my face. Public displays of sexuality have no place here. Do all that you want in your house, but don't do it at the park.

CP

This is where I would draw the line. I don't believe that sexual acts should be displayed on public television, on park benches, beaches etc. So to repeal decency laws, as stated here, I would not approve. Paid television offers an area where adults who wish to view sex can receive their gratification.

Sex itself should be taught to children by their parents. Parents, themselves, should decide when their child is old enough to learn about the act, commitment, and responsibility of engaging in sex.

As for the actual body parts, not being seen in a sexual act, in my opinion, is a different matter. So if we could get over the issue of seeing the body part and if it could be portrayed in a natural way, such as a woman or a man changing clothes and not view it as having sex than I don't see the indecency. If people are used to seeing body parts then it could be thought that the act of seeing the body part does not stimulate sexual arousal unless in a private and intimate setting.

I remember a conversation with Piper Plexed regarding the naked body. When she started Art school she had to get over the idea of viewing the human body sexually. She, being forced to be in a room with male or female nude models required her to get over her reservations of sexualized indecency. Her socially ingrained reservations were overcome by the realization that the body itself is not sexual or indecent, it is the context of the intimate sexual act.

I believe decency laws are beneficial to restrict behaviours such as public coupling, unwanted physical contact, and agression. For example if a man wanted to flash himself, I would view that as aggression and therefore subject to decency laws.

editted to add: I reached my century mark!!!

And if a woman flashes herself it would not be a sign of aggression? Do we not have a gender bias here? Would this stand up to court scrutiny if women can flash but men cannot? What about the equal protection clause?

This was an example Hugo. I wasn't saying it was the only aggressive act that could happen.

Actually, it depends upon the context of viewing parts of the body. If you are talking about children watching a discovery channel program or seeing pictures of indigenous people in National Geographic, that is one thing. It's quite another to expose them to a sexually charged scene. My wife is a mental health therapist who works with adolescents. A good number of her clients are kids with "sex issues" Children who've perpetrated against their younger sisters/brothers, nieces/nephews, and other kids. For them, what happened on the half-time show serves as a "trigger" for many of those kids. They are set off by victoria secret ads(not to mention that show on CBS) as well as other things. Many of them grew up in highly sexually charged households where sex was the topic of the day, and not always responsibly discussed. The contention that exposure does not hurt children is simply untrue.



-Actually, people do. By living in contemporary society, you give up absolute freedom for priveleges such as protection. I don't like keeping my lawn mowed according to city regulations, I don't like not being able to paint my house a certain color because the neighborhood codes forbid it. but hey, those decisions are based upon valid reasons and the processes to make them laws were valid. You as a green party person should know that what the "grassroots" wants, is indeed what they should get.[QUOTE]

[QUOTE] Hell, I find Bill O'Reilly offensive, and suppose I lived in a community where the majority of residents echoed my opinion. Does that give me the right to tell Mr. So-and-So that he is no longer allowed to watch it? [QUOTE]

What is on t.v. and what your community regulates are two different things. By watching t.v., you have a choice as to what you want to watch, and what you don't. You aren't surprised by what Bill O'Reilly states, and you know where he's coming from. I buy the liberal argument that if you don't like something, don't watch it. But how are people to follow that advice and parent their children when they don't know what will be coming at their children next??(see my last post, which no one has commented upon yet)

I as well have worked as a therapist and have been on the treatment team of a Child Crisis Intervention Unit, I have come to a completely different conclusion. Though the exposure to nudity may serve as a trigger for these children this does not necessarily implicate exposure to nudity as the cause of the subsequent deviant sexual behavior. I believe that what has hurt the children and more likely can be attributed as the cause was the highly sexually charged households in which they were reared in. I believe dreampipers point is that nudity is not necessarily sexual. I believe with your wife's help these children will grow to understand their very natural sexual desires and develop boundaries and appropriate avenues of expressing them.

-Very true, hence my differentiation between kids seeing a national geographic t.v. program and what was on at half-time.



-Again, no point of contention here. I'm sure many boorish parents in these kinds of households laughed, hooted, and hollered through the whole thing with their kids in the room .



-Very true, we are not hopeless against our environment(I can just hear B.F. Skinner rolling in his grave upon reading this part ) Unfortunately, such understanding has to come through the realization that irresponsbile parenting and culture are partly to blame.

Nebraska - sexuality is everywhere. If someone has issues with sex, then they should be sticking to Cartoon Network. I have "triggers" as well, but I do not wish to restrict what everyone else can view based on my own personal issues.



I did not say that no one has the right, I said no one should have the right.

LGM: The only STD that is a "death sentence" is HIV/AIDs. There are hundreds, if not thousands deadly, non-STDs in existance. So it is irrational to use the threat of dying from having sex as being somehow more riskier than any other activity.

I don't know of any parents who "talks to their children about the pleasures of sex without discussing the possible consequences." If anything, you have it completely backwards. I believe parents are much, much more likely to only talk about the "possible consequences" of sex (all bad, of course, to scare their children into abstaining) than to only talk about the pleasure of sex, if they do at all.

What is all this talk about being "old enough to understand" and whatnot? This makes no sense. Like a child seeing something that they don't understand has ever led to mass hysteria or something. "Oh my god! I don't understand! Now I'm gonna go kill myself!" I don't think so. I think many people are simply underestimating a child's intelligence. When I was a child and saw something I didn't understand, I'd ask someone. Case closed. If a parent is too uncomfortable or too prudish to explain natural workings of the human body, it's their problem, not mine. That should not affect what I am able to see on TV.

Concerning the "male visual stimulus response"... urg. Just, urg. It always seems like it's the responsibility of the female to control the male's impulses and urges. Disgusting. It is not the females' responsibility to control the bodies and responses of males. Restricting what females and wear and not wear simply based on the responses of their male viewers is absurd. "Sorry, you can't expose a breast. A male viewer might get an erection."



Wrong. I did not have a choice as to whether I saw Janet Jackson's breast or not, because the community already determined that since it offended them, I could not see it. Watching a live awards show where a nominee uses profanity and it gets bleeped out... again, I do not have an option whether I hear the word or not. I do not have a choice as to what I see/hear and what I don't; the community decides what is appropriate for me. My choice is taken away. On the other hand, if it were left uncensored, both my choice and the choices of people who disagree with me are intact. It is not a matter of just having the ability to watch a certain station, but a matter of having the ability to watch something uncensored.

LGM - yes, children's behavior is sometimes, to an extent, influenced by what they see. That is why it is up to the parent to monitor TV. Forbidding anyone from watching or hearing something simply because it might be harmful for younger viewers is wrong. I am an adult, and I should be able to select what is and isn't appropriate for me to view - not the government.

So far as sex and violence on television goes, isn't this what the wars over TV ratings were fought for? So we wouldn't have to regulate what could be displayed? The popular example, The Superbowl, was rated TV14. This show is not recommended for anyone under the age of 14 unless their parents give them express permission to watch it.

The problem is that people think, "But it's the Super Bowl!", rather than use their common sense and think "This show will quite possibly contain violent and sexual material. Maybe I don't want my child watching this."

I'm in favor of not making any laws regarding actions that cause no harm to anyone or impair someone elses' rights. To anyone offended by such 'shenanigans', I'd like to remind them of the many buttons on the television. Some change the station, and one even turns it off. That is their right to 'not see' it. My right to see it, is to turn my TV on. No one is forcing us to do either. But if 'indecent' things are taken off of the air, then my right to see, and the channels right to air, the offending material are taken away.

Where is anyone suggestion that 'indecent things' be taken off the air? I hear a lot of complaining of censorship without any basis. A broadcast should abide by the guidelines they agree upon.

I too am an advocate of "not making any laws regarding actions that cause no harm to anyone or impair someone elses' rights". The question is, when are the rights of another harmed? Are my rights to raise my child decently infringed if a couple is engaging in the sex act on the public park bench in front of my children? Are my rights infringed if any man is free to flash me anytime in the street? I think so. Hence, the need for decency laws.

It's almost as if having rules that stop people from doing whatever
they may want to, on a whim, is somehow trampling on "their rights."

Sorry, if I don't feel like watching Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake
simulate a sex scene on national television..

There is a time and place for adult behavior. I'm very tired of hearing
people chant, "it's just a b - - -," or, "there's nothing wrong with s e x.
What are you so uptight about?", etc....

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in displaying good manners, dressing
modestly, behaving in a humble way when I'm out in public. What is so
wrong with showing some restraint????

That's the whole point. You are allowed to feel this way and live accordingly. You have every right to wear a burkha, if you so desire. And nobody is saying otherwise.

The problem is with demanding that everyone else be modest, humble, etc. You think you have that right? Would it be any different from someone telling you that you have to stop being modest and humble?

I see the situation very clearly.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the government can say I am not allowed to walk around the way I was born. Animals are naked, many people around the world are naked - why cant we be?

Some people may not want to do it, if they feel embarassed for example, or they feel they will be threatened or assalted, but it shouldnt be illegal - it is at the discretion of the individual.

The illegal nature came from the rise of religion. In Roman times many sports were completed nude, and people bathed together naked. It wasnt until the Puritans came about with their abnormal ways, and enforced the idea that Nudity was a sin on people. Should we really be basing our laws on such fundamentalists?

America has always been less tolerant than England, when they banned a multitude of paintings depicting nudity including the infamous September Morn.

I think the law is a direct infringement on a liberty which entiterly natural. I dont see it any different, in the sense that it is completely illegitimate, than the Burkha that the Taliban forced woman to wear. Its still forcing people to comply to certain clothing restrictions decided not by the people but by the state - The woman in Afghanistan had no choice; we too do not have a choice.

With all due respect, I equate your argument with that
of the smoker who feels he should be able to light up
anywhere he pleases, regardless if other people are
bothered by it.

If you enjoy nudity, dirty dancing, sex simulation,
etc., good for you. But, why (to use the overused
example of the Superbowl half-time show) must it
be at an event like the Superbowl, where there are
thousands of people who may be offended by such
behavior?

There are plenty of HBO, Playboy, etc. channels that
cater to that type of "entertainment". Football stadiums,
where our national pasttime is being watched by
millions around the world, is NOT the place for such
loose behavior.

There have to be set guidelines for acceptable behavior.
It may be that your preference is for less modest rules
of conduct. However, it should be what is appropriate for
eveyone (that includes children, who are so often overlooked
in our society), that should be deemed the appropriate rules
of conduct.

No one is forced to be modest or humble. There are (and should be) some standards for public conduct and decency. Excretory functions are normal, but prohibited in public. Stalking and harassment are prohibited as well....even if the 'victim' is never directly physically harmed in any way. I cannot send a death threat to someone and exercise my freedom of speech in that way. All the costs of living in a civil society.

The thing about pornography is that it is just sexual harassment to those that don't want it. That's why I support legislation that prohibits media & billboards from airing sexual comments and/or pictures of naked people. No, decency laws should not be repealed.

But these things cause harm to others. We disalow them because they have a negative effect, not because they are "indecent".
I will guarantee that there was not a single person in the US who was harmed by seeing Janet Jackson's boob. It was tacky, but that is all. I find a lot of things tacky, that doesn't mean they should be illegal, nor that those who enjoy them should not be allowed to enjoy them.

All of this "for the children!" talk really annoys me. I am an adult, and my entertainment options should not be limited to what is appropriate for a five year old. If you don't want your child exposed to certain things, be a parent and quit expecting the government to do your job for you.

Your entertainment options are not limited to what is right for a five year old to see. You are free to watch whatever you want to.
How does watching a person eliminate harm anyone? How is anyone harmed by the simple language of harassment?

Public health concerns are the reason that this would be illegal. Excrement breeds disease.
It is a threat that could reasonably be expected to make a person fear for their safety. The victim of harassment has no reasonable expectation that it will end at harassment.

Dogs are free to defecate in public, as long as the excrement is picked up (a rare occurance). Is human excrement somehow more of a public health concern than canine? Why? What about public urination? Certainly that poses no true health risk.

The victim of harassment knows that the person cannot legally follow through with their threat. The real problem with harassment is it limits that person’s freedom if they are fearful of the annoyance, or potential for personal injury. If I have to worry about taking my children to the store, or a ball game, or the park, because of lewd sexual conduct or (for many) nudity, that too detracts from my freedom. I should be able to watch a ballgame, the food channel, or Bambi without worrying about sexually explicit content. Is your freedom somehow infringed because there isn’t enough sexual content on ‘Bambi’? Is your freedom infringed because there aren’t enough penises exposed on the food channel?

What about noise pollution, and nuisance laws, for that matter? Should a neighbor be entitled to have extremely loud music or Rush Limbaugh bellowing all night long, as long as it does no direct damage to the neighbor’s auditory function? No one is physically harmed by annoying music or Rush Limbaugh.

The limit to an individual’s personal freedom is when it infringes on the freedom of another. Anyone who feels the compulsion is free to watch whatever he/she wants. They can even take a picture and put it up on their refrigerator or keep it with them in their wallet. Rubbing it everywhere, in everyone’s face with or without their consent is a limit on the personal freedom of the viewers, or those who frequent an establishment (unless there is the understanding that sexual exposure is part of the ambiance). I should be free to walk to the park and have my children play unharassed and unthreatened. I should also be free to go to the park and not have to look at people engaging in sexual activity.

I agree with you here, I just don't see anyone "forcing" any sexual material on anybody.
The Superbowl is not a family cartoon like Bambi, it carried a TV-14 rating to indicate to parents that there might be inappropriate material.
Look, I'm not a big fan of football or breasts, and I thought the halftime show was really tacky. What bothers me is that the manufactured "outrage" of the "what about the children!" crowd has affected programming intended for grown-ups.

Umm, if you're not a fan of breasts then why are you disappointed that they took out a shot of one belonging to an elderly woman? I mean, yes, it sounds like that shot would have been entirely appropriate, but by no means necessary to the storyline. The breast shot would have been there for exposition only, and I think that by now everyone is duly convinced that ER does occur in an emergency room.

If you want to see something naked, you should be allowed to. If you don't want to see something naked or allow your children to see it, then you should be able to reasonably avoid seeing it. Public areas like parks are not suitable for nudity or sex because they infringe on the rights of other people in that public place.

Besides if they allowed sex in public, then it wouldn't be any fun

My intention for this thread was not to endorse censorship. I do not. I started it because a poster suggested that decency laws be eliminated. No one is currently ‘forcing’ sexual material on anyone, or certainly not enough to overstep the line, IMO. I posed a theoretical question, to address the course of discussion as it was heading on a different thread.



If we proscribe to only make laws based on evidence of direct and immediate physical harm, there are a whole lot of laws we must eliminate under that context. Nuisance, death threats, harassment, ect. The reality is, people can be harmed, and their liberties infringed even when they are not directly injured. All laws are determined by morals. Each and every one of them.

Mrs. P, the overwhelming majority of laws are indeed laws because if someone performed the illegal act, they would be harming someone, or traumatizing them enough that they cannot perform their daily routines of life. There is no right that enables people to disrupt others' lives. The only exceptions I can think of are the victimless crimes and indecency laws.

I also take issue with you stating that each and every law is determined by morals. I didn't realize it was against someone's morals to leave dog poop in a park, or go over the speed limit. Those are but two examples of laws that are not based on anyone's ideas of "morals," but rather the potential harm that could come from the outlawed act.

Morality is not the basis for all of America's laws.

Oops! I hadn't thought of speeding. Some laws are regulatory or for safety issues, property rights, ect... so you have me there .

I was thinking of laws against harming others...stealing, murder, and so forth.

Edited to add:
Yes, there is no right that enables people to disrupt other's lives. Exactly. My life is disrupted if people are engaging in sex publicly, or flashing me, or harassing me.

That sentence was a qualifier on this statement: Mrs. P, the overwhelming majority of laws are indeed laws because if someone performed the illegal act, they would be harming someone, or traumatizing them enough that they cannot perform their daily routines of life.

Taken alone, that is taking my post out of context. I stated that there is no right to enable people to disrupt others' lives in reference to laws against things like oh, say, murder, which is certainly disrupting someone's life to the extent that they can not perform their daily routines of life.

In a perfect world, no one would have to see things that offend them. In reality, it's just another fact of life. You may find body parts indecent; if I were a Muslim, I'd find female head hair indecent. This doesn't give me the right to force others to cover up, much less make it into a law. A body is a body, and honestly, if society hadn't been conditioned to find penises, breasts, and vaginas repelling/sexually appealing, then many people wouldn't be so upset to see them. They're bodies. Indecency laws are absurd.

Littering, noise pollution....for that matter, most types of pollution, trespassing, verbal harassment, stalking, threats, just for starters (I don't see the need to come up with more) all cause no direct immediate physical harm, but adversely effect others' lives. There is a distinction between monitoring personal private behavior, which harms no one, and making it public to the point at which it infringes on other's lives and freedoms.

Drug use should be legal, and I think of it as a victimless 'crime'. Allowing the use of drugs in private does not mean that people should then feel free to inject themselves with heroine publicly in the suburbs. The same can be said for sex and nudity. I want a safe and comfortable environment in which to live. I should have the ability to raise my children decently, and not expose them to sexual behavior or imagery (or violence, but that isn't the topic) at a young age.