Freethought & Rationalism Archive

meritocrat · 05-15-2003, 09:48 AM

As a classical liberal, my own subjective view is that the only sex acts which should be outlawed are ones which infringe on others' rights.

In Britain, sex laws are being revamped. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3025377.stm

What's your opinion on them?

Feather · 05-15-2003, 09:58 AM

Dunno what to make of it, to be honest. I wonder how much better or worse off our society would be, morally speaking, if public sex/nudity were NOT banned. But I suspect that's a thread/topic for MF&P.

As for these laws, I suppose they're less draconian than some we have in the US, and that's a step in the right direction, at the very least I suppose.

Loren Pechtel · 05-15-2003, 01:17 PM

My opinion: There's no such crime as indecent exposure, even lewd and lascivious behavior or obscenity. Flashing is a crime as it's a form of attack.
Prostitution should be legal but subject to reasonable health regulations.
I have no problem with laws against kiddie porn with the exception that unposed shots should never qualify. Lacking a model release you can't sell them, though. The current laws are far too draconian, though. 1) Anything legal in it's place of origin is also legal here. 2) Material created in good faith isn't a crime. (The Traci Lords tapes.)
The government should get out of the marriage business, period. Bigamy would disappear. (Note, though, that many bigamists could still be charged with fraud.)
Statutory rape: 1) It shouldn't be an absolute offense. If you reasonably believe the person is of age {ie, see ID or other evidence of age--such as meeting in a bar} then there should be no crime. 2) 18 isn't realistic unless you use an age-bracket system. 3) There should be a judicial bypass available.

Ennazus · 05-15-2003, 01:57 PM

It's so strange here, isn't it? They will show all kinds of violence on TV, but can't show a boob? (Unless it's an educational boob on the Discovery Channel..)

Loren Pechtel · 05-15-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suzanne**Atheist
It's so strange here, isn't it? They will show all kinds of violence on TV, but can't show a boob? (Unless it's an educational boob on the Discovery Channel..)

Found one on Turner Classic Movies some days ago. It wasn't educational but it was in the context of discussing the movie, not showing it. I've also seen full frontal nudity, both sexes, on broadcast TV--Schindler's List.

Gurdur · 05-16-2003, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

My opinion: There's no such crime as indecent exposure, even lewd and lascivious behavior or obscenity.

This is ignoring facts.
There is such a crime under many legal systems. What you mean is that you don't think it should be illegal, however you do not provide any argument beyond implying that you don't think it's a form of attack in your next sentence.
Perhaps you should address why many think it's a crime.

Quote:

Flashing is a crime as it's a form of attack.

Really ?
Penny to a pound anyone can come up with an argument that it's not an attack.

Mind you, I'm not defending it; I think it should be illegal. I'm pointing out the contradictions, and the non-derived arbitrary starting premises, in the libertarian stance.

Quote:

Prostitution should be legal but subject to reasonable health regulations.

Fair enough.

Quote:

I have no problem with laws against kiddie porn ......

This view is in the minority. Most people would seem to see the argument "Why encourage paedophiles ?" as being rather a relevant argument.

Quote:

.... The government should get out of the marriage business, period. Bigamy would disappear. (Note, though, that many bigamists could still be charged with fraud.)

This contradict itsself --- just on what basis would bigamists be liable for fraud if the government got "out of the marriage business, period" ?
You can't be charged for fraud over a matter not recognised to be under legal cover.

Quote:

Statutory rape: 1) It shouldn't be an absolute offense. ....

It isn't. Judges in the UK have discretionary power.

meritocrat · 05-16-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
My opinion: There's no such crime as indecent exposure, even lewd and lascivious behavior or obscenity. Flashing is a crime as it's a form of attack.

Incedent exposure IS a crime.

Quote:

Prostitution should be legal but subject to reasonable health regulations.

Yes it should be further legalised (in the case of the UK at least).

Quote:

I have no problem with laws against kiddie porn with the exception that unposed shots should never qualify. Lacking a model release you can't sell them, though. The current laws are far too draconian, though. 1) Anything legal in it's place of origin is also legal here. 2) Material created in good faith isn't a crime. (The Traci Lords tapes.)

Can a person's snaps of their naked children even be classified as pornography? Was it designed to be porn?

Quote:

The government should get out of the marriage business, period. Bigamy would disappear. (Note, though, that many bigamists could still be charged with fraud.)
Statutory rape: 1) It shouldn't be an absolute offense. If you reasonably believe the person is of age {ie, see ID or other evidence of age--such as meeting in a bar} then there should be no crime. 2) 18 isn't realistic unless you use an age-bracket system. 3) There should be a judicial bypass available.

Perhaps marriage should be privatised, but I don't think the state should condemn bigamy. If you view the ID of someone whom you believe to be above the age of consent, then how can there have been any crime committed?

Loren Pechtel · 05-16-2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Gurdur
This is ignoring facts.
There is such a crime under many legal systems. What you mean is that you don't think it should be illegal, however you do not provide any argument beyond implying that you don't think it's a form of attack in your next sentence.
Perhaps you should address why many think it's a crime.

Yeah, I was expressing how I thought the laws should read.

As for proof--I have never seen any decent arguments that the things in question should be illegal. The default should be legal.

Really ?
Penny to a pound anyone can come up with an argument that it's not an attack.

The point is that flashing is done to get a reaction from the person targeted. As such it seems an attack to me. Attacks do not need to hit--I've seen someone arrested for spitting on the ground near someone (since I didn't know the people involved I know nothing more of the incident). I've also considered filing assault charges against someone who took a swing at me that I ducked.

This view is in the minority. Most people would seem to see the argument "Why encourage paedophiles ?" as being rather a relevant argument.

Exposure to porn cuts the number of sex crimes. The reasonable conclusion is that letting the paedophils get their hands on kiddie porn will cut their crimes, not increase them.

This contradict itsself --- just on what basis would bigamists be liable for fraud if the government got "out of the marriage business, period" ?
You can't be charged for fraud over a matter not recognised to be under legal cover.

If the spouses believed they were each the only spouse then fraud has been committed. If it's merely a polygamous marriage, no crime.

It isn't. Judges in the UK have discretionary power.

The judge has some discretion on sentancing but he can't make the crime go away. I know someone who only got probation on a statutory rape charge--the other person was almost of legal age and had lied about their age, the act was consensual. It's still on his record, though, and sex convictions keep you out of a lot of jobs.

Loren Pechtel · 05-16-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Incedent exposure IS a crime.

I'm saying it shouldn't be.

Can a person's snaps of their naked children even be classified as pornography? Was it designed to be porn?

There was a case in Texas recently. They finally relented from public pressure. It seemed the pictures depicted a sex act--a minor touching a woman's breasts. aka, a baby breastfeeding!

If you view the ID of someone whom you believe to be above the age of consent, then how can there have been any crime committed?

By US law, if that ID turned out to be fake you can still get in trouble.

Ennazus · 05-16-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

I've also seen full frontal nudity, both sexes, on broadcast TV--Schindler's List.

But that was historical nudity..

05-15-2003, 09:48 AM	#1
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	Government and sex laws As a classical liberal, my own subjective view is that the only sex acts which should be outlawed are ones which infringe on others' rights. In Britain, sex laws are being revamped. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3025377.stm What's your opinion on them?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2003, 09:58 AM	#2
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Dunno what to make of it, to be honest. I wonder how much better or worse off our society would be, morally speaking, if public sex/nudity were NOT banned. But I suspect that's a thread/topic for MF&P. As for these laws, I suppose they're less draconian than some we have in the US, and that's a step in the right direction, at the very least I suppose.

05-15-2003, 01:17 PM	#3
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	My opinion: There's no such crime as indecent exposure, even lewd and lascivious behavior or obscenity. Flashing is a crime as it's a form of attack. Prostitution should be legal but subject to reasonable health regulations. I have no problem with laws against kiddie porn with the exception that unposed shots should never qualify. Lacking a model release you can't sell them, though. The current laws are far too draconian, though. 1) Anything legal in it's place of origin is also legal here. 2) Material created in good faith isn't a crime. (The Traci Lords tapes.) The government should get out of the marriage business, period. Bigamy would disappear. (Note, though, that many bigamists could still be charged with fraud.) Statutory rape: 1) It shouldn't be an absolute offense. If you reasonably believe the person is of age {ie, see ID or other evidence of age--such as meeting in a bar} then there should be no crime. 2) 18 isn't realistic unless you use an age-bracket system. 3) There should be a judicial bypass available.

05-15-2003, 01:57 PM	#4
Ennazus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago 'burbs Posts: 1,242	It's so strange here, isn't it? They will show all kinds of violence on TV, but can't show a boob? (Unless it's an educational boob on the Discovery Channel..)

05-16-2003, 11:08 AM	#8
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Gurdur This is ignoring facts. There is such a crime under many legal systems. What you mean is that you don't think it should be illegal, however you do not provide any argument beyond implying that you don't think it's a form of attack in your next sentence. Perhaps you should address why many think it's a crime. Yeah, I was expressing how I thought the laws should read. As for proof--I have never seen any decent arguments that the things in question should be illegal. The default should be legal. Really ? Penny to a pound anyone can come up with an argument that it's not an attack. The point is that flashing is done to get a reaction from the person targeted. As such it seems an attack to me. Attacks do not need to hit--I've seen someone arrested for spitting on the ground near someone (since I didn't know the people involved I know nothing more of the incident). I've also considered filing assault charges against someone who took a swing at me that I ducked. This view is in the minority. Most people would seem to see the argument "Why encourage paedophiles ?" as being rather a relevant argument. Exposure to porn cuts the number of sex crimes. The reasonable conclusion is that letting the paedophils get their hands on kiddie porn will cut their crimes, not increase them. This contradict itsself --- just on what basis would bigamists be liable for fraud if the government got "out of the marriage business, period" ? You can't be charged for fraud over a matter not recognised to be under legal cover. If the spouses believed they were each the only spouse then fraud has been committed. If it's merely a polygamous marriage, no crime. It isn't. Judges in the UK have discretionary power. The judge has some discretion on sentancing but he can't make the crime go away. I know someone who only got probation on a statutory rape charge--the other person was almost of legal age and had lied about their age, the act was consensual. It's still on his record, though, and sex convictions keep you out of a lot of jobs.

05-16-2003, 11:11 AM	#9
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by meritocrat Incedent exposure IS a crime. I'm saying it shouldn't be. Can a person's snaps of their naked children even be classified as pornography? Was it designed to be porn? There was a case in Texas recently. They finally relented from public pressure. It seemed the pictures depicted a sex act--a minor touching a woman's breasts. aka, a baby breastfeeding! If you view the ID of someone whom you believe to be above the age of consent, then how can there have been any crime committed? By US law, if that ID turned out to be fake you can still get in trouble.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.