Don't go naked in your own home--you might get arrested.

[KRonn]

This seems like another half assed reported story, as too usual. We don't have enough info, so no idea if the naked coffee maker was flashing the mom and kid, or just happened to be seen by them as they walked on his property. It shouldn't really have made the news, at least not in the half baked manner the story appears to have been reported in, leaving out the pertinent info.

[Maximus]

I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.

Fucked up country. 

This is where he goes into "OMG I WAS TROLLING LOL" mode.

[MadImmortalMan]

At what point is it ok to begin prosecuting a person for doing things on his own property? I ask in a purely devil's advocate way.

Should a person be prosecuted for being nude in his own backyard, for instance? Or only if nobody can see him? Or only if he's fat or ugly?

Is land that belongs to you not enclosed by a structure considered a public place for the purposes of things like public intoxication or indecency or other things that might offend other people? What if said land is a rural place and surrounded by acres and acres of more land owned by you?

What if you own a drive-in theater and you want to show porn there one night a week, but the screen can be seen from certain angles from the road?



Where do your property rights end and other peoples' desire not to be offended begin?

[The Brain]

At what point is it ok to begin prosecuting a person for doing things on his own property? I ask in a purely devil's advocate way.

Should a person be prosecuted for being nude in his own backyard, for instance? Or only if nobody can see him? Or only if he's fat or ugly?

Is land that belongs to you not enclosed by a structure considered a public place for the purposes of things like public intoxication or indecency or other things that might offend other people? What if said land is a rural place and surrounded by acres and acres of more land owned by you?

What if you own a drive-in theater and you want to show porn there one night a week, but the screen can be seen from certain angles from the road?



Where do your property rights end and other peoples' desire not to be offended begin?

Read the law. Or that's what you would do in Sweden.

[MadImmortalMan]

Read the law. Or that's what you would do in Sweden.

Of course. I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about what "should" be.

[garbon]

Or only if he's fat or ugly?

This. That's how I feel about public nudity in SF as well.

[The Brain]

Read the law. Or that's what you would do in Sweden.

Of course. I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about what "should" be.

So where's the devil's advocate stuff?

[Martinus]

Would you really need to be reminded? 

No, but I couldn't resist the imagery of you reminding me to smack you upside the head.

Did it arouse you?

[Martinus]

I don't think anybody is saying flashing kids is a good thing Berkut.  If they can prove that was what he was doing then he will pay the consequences.

Of course - my point is just that everyone going all "OMG! This is crazy!" are off base.

Granted, it would be crazy if he was just in his house naked, and there was no reason for him to think a kid would be around.

But since he was charged, that suggests that either:

1. Everyone involved, from the parent to the cops, are all ridiculously sensitive, or
2. There is more to the story, and some reason to suspect that this was not what he has claimed.

I think #2 seems a bit more likely than #1. It is also very plausible that the woman is a spaz who is blowing something innocent out of proportion, and the cops found her story credible enough to charge, but is won't go anywhere.

Seeing how America seems to be in the constant state of moral panic, I don't think #1 is less likely than #2.

[Martinus]

Granted, it would be crazy if he was just in his house naked, and there was no reason for him to think a kid would be around.

See this is where you employ your intellectual dishonesty. you are making the argument, effectively, that anyone who goes naked around his house, where there is a chance (no matter how remote) that kids could possibly ever see them, is "flashing the kids".

This is where your idiocy lies.

[Martinus]

And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.

And here is the second part of your perfectly idiotic, moral-panic-style argument.

1. Anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter how remote the chance) is "flashing the children".
2. Anyone who is "flashing the children" is likely having "sexual issues with children".

Ergo, anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter if this is their private property and no matter how remote the chance) is a pedophile.

Perfect Berkut logic. 

[Martinus]

Hey, Berkut. Are you ever naked at your home? That means your kids could theoretically enter at some point and see you naked.

So are you a pedophile? When are you going to turn yourself in?

[Martinus]

I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.

Fucked up country. 

This is where he goes into "OMG I WAS TROLLING LOL" mode.

How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.

[Barrister]

How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.

Putting aside the ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that?  I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father.  Not that your stat couldn't be true either.

[DGuller]

Putting aside the ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that?  I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father.  Not that your stat couldn't be true either.

"Most common" is the wrong statistic.  "Most likely" is more appropriate.