These two were just *asking* for trouble...

Ross Elliot's picture
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Wed, 2005-12-07 23:27

Snapped at Bondi beach, Sydney, Australia... apparently Smiling

I did it in a wheat field once. Only the birds had a good view Eye

Anyone else like to admit to a risky or strange locale???







'Allo, 'allo, 'allo...


( categories: )

If it is 'public', then,

Robert Malcom's picture

If it is 'public', then, properly, it should be for ALL, including the nudists, and sex cravers - just as long as there is no coercion [and if ye donna like it, then donna look at it]... it is, properly, ONLY on private places that restrictions should/would be given...

Liberty

Stephen Whittington's picture

I think that freedom is the most important word used in politics. I believe that that places me firmly in what I would consider the right-wing camp. I have no problem with 'public' displays of affection or nudity. I say 'public' in the sense that the general public may easily be able to view the act.

I would point out that, in general, what prohibits people having sex in public is not a law against it, but firstly generally the cold, and secondly embarrassment. But if two (or more) people want to have sex on their property in the sight of others, then so be it. And if those others want to look away, then they can do that too - just as much as they can watch if they're so inclined.

Public property?!

Andrew Bates's picture

Jason - there shouldn't be any public parks, they should be privatised.

Owners of parks should be able to determine whether people can go naked in those parks. 

If your neighbour is naked over the fence, I would suggest turning the other way or videoing it and selling it on the internet. 

Now if someone standing on the roadside edge their property is flashing every passer-by, I would imagine a case could be made that a form of sexual assualt was occurring but I'll leave that discussion to the lawyers. Hope my contributions above are helpful.

That's a *very* good

Ross Elliot's picture

That's a *very* good question Smiling

So what you're saying...

Jody Gomez's picture

...is that if I come across those pictures you would not want to see them?

Jody, I think the thrust of

Ross Elliot's picture

Jody, I think the thrust of my post above still applies regarding common law & horses for courses.

While you can't claim privacy in all situations where you're open to another's view, the fact that someone is on private property & is not acting in an exhibitionist manner would be a point in favour of their right to privacy. If Jen stood on my fenceline with her norks hanging over the fence (oh, sure!), winked and said G'day, real sexy-like, I'm sure I'd have every right to snap away at high speed.

Which sorta puts me on the side that says grubby little tabloid paparazzi should be sued if they've spent three days hiding in someone's trashcan just so they can snap a movie star in a compromising position while on private property.

Erik, police in Aussie & NZ...

Ross Elliot's picture

...wear those vests when performing an X-69 copulation intervention, also known as a screw negation manoeuvre, or colloquially as a "shag sweep".

It's quite a common thing to see in the summertime, like it is now.

another direction

Jody Gomez's picture

I hate for this thread to go off in too many directions, but let me throw another wrench into the mix. I know that Jennifer Aniston was recently photographed sunbathing topless, and that she threatened to sue anyone who posted those images(I'm desperately trying to come across them, so I can post them here and have SOLOPASSION encounter it's first lawsuit). So, if she was sunbathing on private property, but in view of adjacent property that was not owned by her, does she have any moral right to repress those photos?

haste

Jody Gomez's picture

My first hasty and off the cuff comment is that what one does on their on private property is their business. I have no doubt about that. If they are in the line of site of someone, and that someone gets offended, then said someone should simply look at something else.

And now, I'm going to have to think further about public property.

So, I'm geussing this guy

Titan's picture

So, I'm geussing this guy just won a serious bet with his wife or girlfriend and is demanding pay-up like right NOW. (Sidenote; what's the purpose of the bright green vest on the police officer?)

Ah, but you are forgetting

Robert's picture

Ah, but you are forgetting something, nudity in public broadcasts isn't something that we should be prohibiting. Firstly that's censorship - someone else telling me what I can and can't do. Most people who proclaim the need for censorship claim that they are protecting people from accidently being exposed to a horrific wardrobe malfunction that leads to an over-flowing breast topped by a pierced nipple... But hang about, broadcasts aren't free.

By paying for the service and signing a contract you are agreeing to the content that the provider is broadcasting. And if - as in the Superbowl - the broadcaster lets you see more of Janet Jackson than you'd care too (and to be frank I'd be inclined to sue CBS for exposing me to her singing rather than her boobie) then you can sue for breach of contract.

Which is what should have happened. Advertisers should have sued CBS for associating their products with lewd behaviour, CBS should have sued MTV for producing this bullshit. Believe it or not you don't actually need the FTC when TV companies stand to loose millions of $$ in advertising by antagonising the people in the USA who believe that breasts should only be shown behind closed doors to the person you are married too...

"Oh but what about public TV? Grandma's heart is going to explode if sees one more shot of David Hasselhoff in Speedos." In those instances where the broadcast is free (ie paid for by someone else and broadcast widely), you still have to setup a TV & an aerial and then tune them in order to pick up the naughtiness.

That in of itself implies that you are going to the nuisance rather than it coming to you...

If you apply the common law to solve this problem the key issues are: Whose broadcast? How was it obtained (ie did you pay for it?) What damage has been done? And if all that can be proved objectively is that the "victim" got an erection - well I'm thinking the victim owes the defendant & the court some cash for wasting everybody's time.

Quote from PC's article: "Common law is not just simpler than statute law, it is also immune to political hijack – one particular reason for its popularity with libertarians and its unpopularity with big government advocates. Rights are protected in practice, not proclaimed on parchment. Further, unlike statute law, common law always has a plaintiff or victim – there are no ‘victimless crimes’ under common law.

Finally, it is the pre-eminent law to protect both environment and property, and unlike zoning laws, anti-pollution statutes and the Resource Management Act it has over seven-hundred years of sophistication in actually doing so.

"What's meant by "serious"

Robert's picture

"What's meant by "serious" or "harm or distress". Well, that's the province of the common law. If the principles upon which legal interpretations are made are clear enough & enshrined in a consitution, the common law should remain well behaved and acceptable to all."

See PC.blogspot for a clear definition of "Common law" (I really should be rewarded for plugging Cresswell's site!)

http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/05...

& here:

http://del.icio.us/NotPC/Commo...

Broadcast Rights

Charles Henrikson's picture

I think that it comes under "broadcast rights" -- if we prohibit nudity on broadcast TV, why not prohibiting the broadcasting of photons the same way?

Ok, under a minarchist setup

Ross Elliot's picture

Ok, under a minarchist setup there would be no *publicly* owned spaces as we now have them. Therefore we only have to examine the private property implications of these types of acts.

Now, screwing on your patio in full view of passers-by is the same as plastering a huge picture of the same screwing couple on the side of your house.

Will some people be offended? You bet. Do they have some right to demand that said acts or material be removed or toned down? Maybe...

Here's the thing: is there an issue of "the commons" that can still arise within a society based solely upon private property ownership? Sure. Take pollution. Your neighbour burns rubbish in the yard and it makes you ill. Certainly he is polluting your property and must desist. But what if he's only smoking and a little wafts over to your sensitive nose? Is he really violating your property rights? I'd suggest a court would rule no.

The principle here might be that while an environmental nuisance is not serious enough to cause harm or distress, it should not be prevented. Same deal with sex or images, noise, etc.

What's meant by "serious" or "harm or distress". Well, that's the province of the common law. If the principles upon which legal interpretations are made are clear enough & enshrined in a consitution, the common law should remain well behaved and acceptable to all.

hmmm

Christy L's picture

I didn't answer your question the first time, Jason. I'll think on it.

"You aren't really being

Robert's picture

"You aren't really being prohibited from having sex; you just can't have it by the produce at the local Farmers Market or where youngsters are leaving preschool for the day."

Or in other words you aren't being prohibited from having sex you are being prevented from invading or damaging (committing trespass, vandalism etc.) someone else's property. Of course you have to be caught first...

As to the issue of "public" areas, well, what does objectivism say about them?

But on what basis?

Jason Quintana's picture

Yes, I understand all of these consquences but on what ethical basis are you building the argument?

- Jason

hygiene!

Christy L's picture

Jason,
I'm comfortable with a semen-free public park the same way I'm OK with some time/place/manner restrictions, the type that allows you to prohibit Jehovah's Witnesses from blasting off a bullhorn whenever somebody walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic or keeps an aspiring, untalented band from practicing at full volume, outdoors, at midnight, in the middle of a quiet neighborhood. You aren't really being prohibited from having sex; you just can't have it by the produce at the local Farmers Market or where youngsters are leaving preschool for the day.

Tie in to Objectivist Politics :)

Jason Quintana's picture

Lets explore this topic a bit. Should 'obscenity' and nudity be illegal on so called "public property" or on private property in public view? Should adults be allowed to bare it all in public? Should I be able to head out to the city park near my apartment or on my patio and engage in sex acts with the partner(Drunk of my choice? Is there a objective basis for making this illegal -- an 'aesthetic initiation of force'? Smiling

- Jason

Elevator's good. Just a long

Ross Elliot's picture

Elevator's good. Just a long as there's a stop button & *no* cameras Smiling

All I ever managed was a

stormyeyes's picture

All I ever managed was a kiss and a grope in an elevator.

Heeled?

Peter Cresswell's picture

Wasn't it being heeled, Andrew, that caused your own problem in the first place?

Emigrating to Sydney in Mid Jan

Andrew Bates's picture

Anyone else want to start a SOLO Sydney with me?

PS My face has heeled nicely.

Sometimes trouble is well

Jody Gomez's picture

Sometimes trouble is well worth it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.