Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Sex Police
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to "show me yours." When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not.

Why did cops hide in the shadows to arrest a man no one but they could see?

On last week's "20/20", Dr. Marty Klein pointed out that the police weren't protecting children.

"There were no children anywhere in sight. In fact, there were no adults anywhere in sight."

Klein says it's part of "America's War on Sex."

"American society attempts to restrict what adults can do, what adults can see ... more than any other industrial country."

Ken Giles was jogging in a park in Johnson City, Tenn., when, as he put it, "nature called." He went off the trail to go take care of business. Then an undercover agent "put the badge in my face and told me that I was under arrest. I just thought I was in trouble for urinating in public."

It was much more humiliating than that. The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex. But the police went beyond arrests. Before anyone was convicted, they posted the names, addresses and photos of the men.

Giles's wife saw his picture on the news. Then his employer fired him. "When I lost my job ... my wife was so upset that she had a ... a major heart attack."

Another man named by the police killed himself.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says he has no sympathy for such sex offenders. "There's not a presumption of confidentiality when you're arrested and charged," he told me.

It's intrusive enough when police arrest someone in a public place, but worse when the police turn their sights indoors, to places where people choose to be exposed to sex.

Chippendales, the male burlesque show, has toured the country for years. Their show is not as racy as you might think. The men dance, show off their bodies and flirt with some women in the audience. There's no nudity.

Chippendales never had a problem with authorities -- until it came to Lubbock, Texas. Ten minutes before their show, the police told the dancers, "Don't ever simulate a sex act."

The dancers did their usual show and then ventured out into the crowd. The police then shut down the show and took the dancers to jail.

The crowd was angry. "City council sucks!" the audience shouted.

Mayor David Miller told me, "In the judgment of our police officers that night, they violated one portion or more of [the city's] ordinance."

What were the police protecting willing adult customers from?

"From these types of activities spilling over into their neighborhood."

Within a week of the Chippendales arrest, three murders occurred in Lubbock. Wouldn't those police officers have been better used elsewhere?

Some states have laws that creep right into the bedroom. In Alabama, legislators banned the sale of sex toys. That upset Dave Smith, whose wife owns Pleasures, "Your One Stop Romance Shop."

"In the state of Alabama I can buy a gun. I can carry it in my pocket. ... But if I buy this [sex toy], someone could get arrested!" Smith said.

The ACLU helped challenge the law. But an appeals court ruled that the politicians have a "legitimate legislative interest in discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex" -- in other words, masturbation -- because that may be "detrimental to the health and morality of the State."

Oddly, Pleasures is still in business because the law makes an exception if a sex toy is sold for a medical purpose. To buy a vibrator, customers need only answer yes to a questionnaire asking things like, "Have difficulty having an orgasm?"

I asked the Family Research Council's Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.

"The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys."

Give me a break.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Heaven's to Mergatroid
lmao...wow...and another "LOL".....Good Article Mr. Stossel!

Thank God I Don't Live In Texas
It's official: Texas has finally become America's sphincter, a title I once bestowed on the great paranoid state of Georgia (it was only partially because of Ted Turner, but not by that much.)

Did you know that the man who was caught urinating can be put in the same database as that 300-pound child rapist in severely injured the poor 6-year-old girl. I don't know what's more sick, the child rapist or the inclusion of an innocent urinator in the same group as that child rapist? It brings to mind that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry is caught urinating inside a mall parking lot by the mall security guard ("If I held it in any further, I could have gotten Uromysitisis!")

Yes, this is a Christian country, but it's also home to the non-believers who don't believe reading a Playboy is going to condemn them to Nothingness. Speaking of which, I've got the latest issue to catch up on.

-"The Rat symbolizes Obviousness!"
- Ralph Wiggum, from "The Simpsons"

Family Reseach Coucil hates freedom!
" I asked the Family Research Council's Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops.

"The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys."

How disgusting is that? FRC wants to shred the Constitution and strip freedom from America. They actually fear freedom, and feel a NEED for a government nanny state. And, before someone writes "it's not shredding the Constitution because it's at the state level", take a look at their strong advocacy of a FEDERAL ban on online poker and of other Internet censorship. LOL at the GOP for buying into their big government nanny-state garbage.

Great Collumn!
File this one away for the next time social conservatives talk about how their ideology is all about freedom!

There must be some standards
If you don't believe that, I invite you to go to http://www.zombietime.com and click on the Folsom Street Fair. Recently, police on Cape Cod have arrested gays for having their version of total sex on public beaches. To further decry "gay" behavior note the sweet little girl her two daddies brought to the "Fair".

I know straight people get out of hand too when standards are so lax that "if it feels good, do it" is the dominate philosophy.

Family Reseach Coucil hates families..
And the reason they do is they get into our business with our family.

Get over yourself Stossel!
Hate to break this to you John, but open perversion in public parks is something we should crack down on. It's well known that perverts use parks as places to lure young children into sexual encounters. That's why the police have sting operations in parks. Law and order is a good thing, John!

Peeing "in public"
Aam i now going to jail for peeing on a golf course???????

Peeing "in public"
Where is my comment?

FOWG
Who the obscenity are you to tell consenting adults what their standards should be for their consentual behavior amongst themselves when it does not in any way involve you! I remember when conservatism was all about self reliance and government out of your face and freedom. When I was in high school the favorite authors of my conservative classmates were Thoreau Rand and Friedman. How times have changed! Todays "Conservatives" are just christian fascists that want to force everyone else to live the way they think people should live in their narrow idea of an ideal society. Kind of reminds me of another ism beginning with C that was around when I was in high school.

common sense
It seems like you should be able to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on another's right to do the same. I think I heard that in Am Govt in high school.

I hate getting labeled as a "libertarian." It seems like common sense to me.

We should err on the side of individual rights.


There's no shame in that
carlos: "It seems like you should be able to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on another's right to do the same. I hate getting labeled as a "libertarian." It seems like common sense to me. We should err on the side of individual rights"

Carlos, that is exactly what Libertarians believe in - less government, and the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. That moniker is a badge of honor.

I'm proud of my Libertarian leanings, as opposed to these social conservative pukes who want to tell me how to live.

Mary
if TH is nutty then why are you reading it. Stossel is libertarian in everything; he has more in common with conservatives who tend to be libertarian re govt interference in economic matter; this sexual stuff is no representative of conservatives; only a narrow few; it is liberals who are responsible for much worse re free speech in universities where conservatives are harassed and cant even speak; even the nytimes, the voice of liberalism refused to print mcain op ed after it printed obama's unless he toed the nytimes line and echoed obama; much more serious than the stupid things stossel pointed out;
liberal columbia university tolerated harrassment of invited speaker from the minuteman so he could not finish his speech on immigration; on the other hand, it bans ROTC because of dont ask, dont tell re HS but at the same time invites the president of Iran who hangs homosexuals and then denies that HS live in IRan;
much worse than the nonsense that strossel described; it is blip

the sex police are a small minority in isolated places; the liberal restriction on freedom is much more pervasive

No offense to Libertarians earlier

Being able to do what you want unless you are infringing on someone else's rights is the essence of being an American. How could anyone not agree with this concept?

When I have another American tell me, "Oh you must be a Libertarian," it makes me wonder what they believe in.

I'm not against Libertarians at all - I just dislike people who use labels.

Mary's on the money too
"I am still trying to figure out why a class act and rational thinker such as Mr. Stossel allows his column to be carried by this nutty site, TH? John, you could do much better."

Very much so. Unfortunately, the sane libertarians and fiscal conservatives made a Faustian deal with the social "conservatives" (aka xian fascists) to get elected. Now, we're broke and in debt (even though Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility!), and no one will vote for the party because of the lies involved in the war, and the fear that the xians will take over the presidency, either because McCain isn't paying attention or picks a running mate who is.

"I feel the wrath of god descending..."

Not quite. You feel the wrath of the xian maniacs who think they can legislate their "morals."

So it's back too...
the missionary position, folks. Sex ain't for fun, it's to produce babies. everyone knows that!

I'm sorry, but why is America called 'The Land of The Free'? I's just a myth. There are many (little) people in power with a Taliban style mentality and THEY are the real danger to American freedom, not Bin Laden.

binLaden did less damage to the Republic
than we did to it ourselves.

We have given up our freedoms in salami slices and allowed a police state to develop. It needs to be aborted.

Tell you what, have the airlines hand a rubber-bullet gun to every passenger as they board and see how many hijackings we get then.

A lot more effective and cheaper than rummaging through my underwear. (Not to mention pleasanter for all concerned.)

Idiocy marches on
I have no problem with crackdowns where pedophiles have turned public parks into hunting preserves. I have a host of problems, however, with people who can't make distinctions. The difference between a pervert accosting a child and a jogger taking a leak is so great that only an idiot could fail to notice it. Roughly the same degree of difference exists between a real gun and one in a schoolchild's drawing, between forcible rape and an off-color joke, between an attacker and a defender. Unfortunately, idiots have taken over officialdom, and they've nearly achieved dominion over public discourse.

by the way, years ago a tipsy fellow who'd stopped to relieve himself outside a tavern appeared before one of our more colorful judges. The arresting policeman testified that he'd seen the man stop and seen a puddle at that spot. But at length he admitted that hadn't actually seen the man urinate. So the judge found the man guilty of a misdemeanor previously associated with unsafe automobiles: improper equipment.

Everyone believes in a Nanny state...
...they only disagree about who the Nanny is going to be.

There are no exceptions to this.

Rick C
I hate to break it to you but SC also has the option of charging you with a sex crime for urinating in public.

Um...
Isn't this why we want local control so that the locals can make their OWN rules for their OWN areas? If the local populace want such laws, who are we to say they can't have them? Such laws have ALWAYS been on the books in one locale or another in the USA... since all the way back to the Founding.

Does Stossel want the Federal gov't to make rules for all of us to follow on sex related topics? If so, that would be quite a turn by Stossel who usually wants the Feds OUT of our lives.

I say if you don't like your local laws on morals and sex... MOVE AWAY!

Everything is against the law
Arresting pedophiles in the park is one thing. Arresting a jogger for taking a leak in the bushes, or a hunter taking one in the woods, is altogether different. The problem is too many cops are devoid of common sense.

Too many men in blue get off making mountains out of mole hills and the courts go right along with their bogus charges. The more Mickey Mouse laws, the more money for the lawyers. 'Ya think that has anything to do with the zillions of laws we have in our once free country?

Police?
I continue to find it rather interesting, how often the stassi cringe, when a citizen with even two small chips of gravel in his jeans lashes back at their 'faux grandeur.' I find it distressing that so many just shrug, pay their "protection" vig, and shuffle back into anonymity.

I hate the copperheads and despise the nebbish.

Could Be....
Maybe it is just that it is a lot safer for the police to be arresting people urinating in the park rather than messing with gang bangers and car jackers and murderers and rapists. It is a lot less work and urinators don't shoot back.

The Do-Gooders
Just want to protect us. Some don't want us smoking weed, masturbating, looking at dirty movies, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Others don't want us to pay for our own doctor bills, our own retirement plans, or make our own decisions about the type of light bulbs to use.

Thank you, do-gooders of every stripe. Without you, there would probably be thousands of citizens masturbating and smoking weed while riding their motorcycles to the dirty movie store. And nobody wants that.

Your Mom was right when she told you to mind your own business.

Good article
Few responsible people would object to a regulation prohibiting fornicating in public areas.

But I agree with Stossel on this.

Where does the Family Research Council get off in deeming itself the right to protect people from themselves?

It is just as offensive that it arrogate unto itself the power to protect adults from buying sex toys or pornography, as those nanny-staters on the left thinking they have the authority to protect people from foods containing trans-fats, or telling Americans they must not purchase evil, polluting suvs.

Stossel's example of the Columbus, Ohio,
man arrested in response to the advances of a topless woman should a wakeup call for all Americans who value freedom from government intrusion and its sordid manipulations.

Let Me See....

If I've got this straight, John.

The problems you cited are the result of NOT ENOUGH SEXUAL FREEDOM IN 2008 AMERICA?????

Wow!

Excuse me while I LMFAO.

Hey, John. Every city in America can't be San Franciso or Las Vegas. O.K.? I know it's a blow to you and Hugh Hefner, but there's still some morals left in the country. Shocking isn't it? Yep! Most people across the USA still believe in God and Family.

AND, btw, they're not prudes either!

Want to know the truth? They're just sick and tired of the endless, mindless perversion of sex that T.V. sit-com producers provide.

Can't blame them for that.

Here they come!
All manner of slinging derogatory comments about "those people" we don't know, and worse, don't want to.

PUHLEEZE, can't we have a little common sense here? Goalieman, OF COURSE law and order is a good thing, but does that mean we flush common sense down the drain? I have "urinated in public" but anyone who may have been watching in a secret sting operation would HAVE to have noticed me looking around to make sure I wasn't doing it in front of someone.

I'll be the guy that was arrested did the same thing. The cops could have put the fear of god in him, threatened him with indecent exposure and sent him on his way. To make a public spectacle of him for something so trivial is beyond obscene.

And Caligula and others, there are many of us Christians that don't wish to impose our views on others. In fact many of the do-gooders out there, especially on the left, aren't religious at all. I would not want anyone to screw up their lives with drugs, casual sex, or any other thing that I might consider harmful, either physically or emotionally, but it is not my place to make Biblical sin illegal. We are a nation of free people and each person should have the right to make those decisions for themselves.

On that note, they must also be willing to take fallout for the choices they've made. I'm sick of people making poor choices and THEN they come running asking for help. It's not governments job to provide a safety net for anyones poor decisions. People fail to learn important life lessons when they are coddled.

Thanks, Mr. Stossel for "exposing" idiocy where it exists.

IMBRA law
"Some states have laws that creep into the bedroom".
Yes, and some nations like the United have laws that not even creep into the bedroom but make it a criminal act to send a love letter to a woman overseas. The new IMBRA law is the pefect example of a law based upon manufactured hysteria by Women's Advocacy groups such as the Tahirih Justice Center. The director of the Bahai faith based non profit organization has stated that American men who date foreign women are "many are premedidated torturers, pedophiles". Meanwhile the only reliable study done on abuse on International relationships found such abuse miniscule.

The law requires submission of criminal background information and a whole host of personal details about the history of a man's life before an American man can use a penpal agency to communicate or say "hello" .

Don't take my word for it. Check out "Online dating rights" or scroll the Internet with the key words "IMBRA".


Lunacy!!
Dang! Next thing you know, the cops will be arresting the Boy Scouts for taking a leak in the woods on a hike that takes all day.
When police commanders come up with these ideas, I wonder seriously why they are blind to finding criminals. Sounds like a make work project that will get publisized so someone keeps their name in the paper. What a sad waste of resources.

The Downfall
It's issues like this that have brought down the Republican party. Their association with the Christian right has become an unholy alliance for the purposes of getting elected and as a result we have taken our eye off the ball.

Not so oddly enough it will wind up putting the socialist Obama in the White House.

Thanks a lot, Karl Rove!

Give them power or the illusion of ....
Give them power or the illusion of power and they want to tell everyone how to run every aspect of their lives. This has got to stop with the politicianss, the courts, the police, and the local & state elected officials. Everyone get the heck out of everyone's lives - take a long walk on a short pier! Or there will someday soon be a Revolution because we simple folks are getting fed up!

Arrested...development...
"...the Columbus, Ohio, man arrested in response to the advances of a topless woman should a wakeup call for all Americans who value freedom from government intrusion and its sordid manipulations."

Isn't that type of action by the woman known as "entrapment"? And isn't entrapment illegal?

Institutionalized sexism
More evidence of how sexist the US has become. A sad part of our culture is that the MSM and politicians continue to propagandize that women are oppressed and exploited... and when you look at the facts objectively, the opposite is arguably true.

"In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to "show me yours." When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not."


Suddenly
Suddenly it has become chic to bash Republicans and this site, calling Conservatives "nutty". Well Einsteins, the Alabama law that was passed that banned sex toys was passed by DEMOCRATS!

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction anytime a law is passed of this nature that evil Bible beating Republicans are behind it.

If you all are going to debate stuff like this, at least do some research so you know what the hell you are talking about.

Wait...
.... so I take it that everyone actually believes the guy who says he was just taking a leak in the park? Come on, people. He was trolling.

That said, many of these laws are going way too far.

Stop painting with a broad brush
Please give some of the Christians in this country credit for some common sense. I would consider myself to be one of those social conservatives that some here despise. However, I would agree that some of the incidents Mr. Stossel talks about are ridiculous and devoid of common sense.

I don't think there should be laws against the sale of sex toys to adults, but on the other hand, I don't want there to be college sponsored sex toy fairs at my daughters' colleges either.

I would prefer to change someone's heart so that they would choose not to engage in activities such as pornography, gambling, drug use or premarital sex rather than to have laws that prevent them from doing so.

I have to also agree with FROG (reply #31 @ 7:06 am) when he/she said that we are tired of people making bad choices and then expect someone else to pay for the consequences.

Are you stuck in a minimum wage job because you were too busy partying when you should have been studying? Too bad. I'm not interested in paying for your healthcare because you can't. Do you have a variety of STDs because you couldn't demonstrate self-discipline? Don't expect me to support a socialist healthcare system to pay for all your prescriptions. Are you unable to pay your mortgage because you've gambled away your paycheck? Stop whining and saying the gov't should do something.

John Stossel
John Stossel is becomng my favorite author on this site. First with his piece about police inventing crimes at stop signs, now with this revealing information. Keep up the good work, John. I don't see anyone else approaching these difficult topics.

Islam here we come
In Islamic countries all these things are forbidden already.

About six months ago there was and article reporting the differing opinions of three Mullahs concerning sex with marriage. It went from eyes open, nude is ok to it has to be eyes closed with clothing on in the dark.

Mr. Sprigg, remember to keep you eyes shut and the lights turned out the next time you engage in sexual relations.

An Asymmetrical Battle
Imagine a girl freely choosing to shower for some reason, maybe just for youthful kicks, in a vacant male facility, a high-school or college locker room, perhaps a gym.

Imagine, likewise, (but not similarly!) a boy showering conveniently but unconventionally in a vacant girls locker room.

No problem, really. In one case.

Imagine the members of the designated gender then unexpectedly enter and - just as playfully let us also imagine - eject the wrong-gendered interloper, a modest hands-on operation.

(1) the girl would be thought a mere thrill seeker, an innocent dare taker, a free spirit, etc.; the male by his presence alone would be assumed a serious violator, a predator probably, of some sort;

and

(2) the attending enforced, if not forceful, ejection would be likewise (though, again, not similarly) regarded with great asymmetry: how cute of the now-wet, squealing, and squirming girls to skid the soapy male offender out the door; how nearly a rape case, maybe with a false imprisonment falsification, it would be argued when male hands, however few, issued the girl from their quarters!

And who but the polemically-correct proponents of gender equality would be spearheading the asymmetrical charge(s).

Straining Gnats , Swallowing Camels
Whenever self-righteousness is free to legislate , you get these types of situations. In any of these cases , who was protected? Did it put any child molestors away for life , arrest any rapists , defend the innocent in any way ?
Instead these incidents confirm one of my basic life premises , that " zero tolerance equals zero intelligence " . Let's get law enforcement chasing true bad guys please . While you are prosecuting park peeings , a gang is taking over another neighborhood.

Why Isn't That Entrapment?
Stossel writes: "In a desolate public park in Columbus, Ohio, a man responded to the advances of a topless woman. She asked him to 'show me yours.' When he did, police officers arrested him. Columbus law says her being topless is OK; exposing his genitalia is not." Seems to me the police are complicit in the man's exposing himself; until he was approached by the topless cop, he was minding his own business and hurting no one.

And why aren't the laws against public urination required to have a passage that says something to the effect of "within 100 feet of a public rest room"? Seems to me jurisdictions that allow the sale of liquid beverages are also complicit in the crime if they don't provide public rest rooms. (In a recent trip to North Wales, which is hardly over developed, there were always public rest rooms within walking distance of the commercial areas - even in the smallest towns. What a concept!)

Instances such as the ones Stossel cites here validate why I joined the Libertarian Party. If these anecdotes offend you, check out the Libertarian Party at: http://www.lp.org .

Not quite...
I'm usually with you, and have no bible quotes to share (for those who think only bible thumpers might object to public nudity/urination/sex), but I think you're off on this one.

Public urination is not a sex crime, and should not be treated as such, but it is a crime. Imagine if everyone just dropped trou at the first hint of a need. I bet even more people than dogs go to the park, and yet we crucify anyone who brings a dog to the park, without a bag to clean up. This is a grown man, who presumably has bladder control. You don't see women doing it because it's not so easy for women, and so we hold it. Just because men have easier access to their urinary tract, does not mean they should just go on a whim.

As to the public sex/exposing yourself - Again, it is a crime, and should be. This may not have been public sex, but it was clearly leading to it. How naive to think that men and women with their privates exposed, late at night, in the park, have no intention of proceeding past "show and tell". They aren't 5 yrs old.

Parks are for the use and benefit of ALL citizens, not just the pervs. When responsible people want sex, they "Get a Room!". Your right to do what feels natural to you, ends precisely when it shows itself to me! I don't want to see you having sex in the park, and I certainly don't want my children to see it.

You can easily say no one else was around, & it was late at night, but who cares what time it was? Certainly not the pervs. Either we have rules that apply equally to everyone, or we don't. Speed limits don't change depending on the time of day, and neither do the rules for public conduct in the parks. No one but pervs go to the park late at night because the parks are crawling with pervs. Get rid of the pervs, and let the normal citizens have access to the parks at ALL hours.

I give Stossel a 99% on this...
... but his super-careful efforts to assure us that no underage kids were involved or anywhere near is in itself a negative.
If we've gone silly in trying to make everyone with genitals into potential "sex offenders," we've gone insane in trying to make them into potential "pedophiles" (especially all males). If the jogging urinator above had been within half a mile of a school, there is doubtless some subset of the law that would have also cited him as a "sexual danger to children." Sadly, too many conservatives would then respond by roaring in approval and calling for his castration.

Stossel misses badly
Excuse the he!! out of me, but does anyone remember the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, where the Supreme Court pretty much stated that, sexually, anything goes in the privacy of your own home? Why, then, do people feel they have the right to turn public parks into orgy centers?

In a better, more modest time, the clichéd reaction to two people getting a little carried away in a public place was to tell them “Get a room!” Guess Stossel thinks I’m denying myself an opportunity for quality entertainment if I still hold to that position.

Personally, I think those who copulate in a public park should be treated the same as someone who would bring a bucket of used motor oil to the park and dump it in the creek. Both are guilty of fouling the environment for the rest of the community.

KM
Sorry, I didn’t see your post until after I sent mine. Looks like we’re a small minority here, proving what I’ve believed for years – “common” sense is an oxymoron.

On another note - WHO is the Nanny?
For all who scream about the Nanny state, Please bear in mind it is almost Unanimously the Democrats who are passing the laws governing our every move.

I am the loudest opponent to Nanny government, but to hear people claiming it's the bible thumpers, or the the Christian right who are passing all these laws, is a joke.

Find any law that intrudes into your personal life, in your own home, or car, or some public place where it's none of the government's business, and you will invariably find a Democrat at the core of the law.

I'm no bible thumper, but I know a lot, and they don't care at all what you do behind closed doors. They've been persecuted, too, and don't want the big nanny intruding into their lives either. They just want you to keep your private business - Private. Not too much to ask, is it?

Nanny State
And just which segment of the political spectrum rallies loudest for the government to continue the lost cause known as the "War On Drugs"? And for the government to deprive fertile women the right to choose whether or not to carry pregnancies to full term? And for the government to prevent people of the same sex to enjoy the same status of married heterosexual couples? And for the government to force people of other faiths or no faith to be subjected to Judeo-Christian prayers and symbols in public (i.e. taxpayer funded) institutions and locations?

Any time any group seeks help from the government to use its implied power of lethal force to impose its version of social engineering on the rest of the population, who are otherwise minding their own business and hurting no one, is appealing for a Nanny State.

Paleocon, perfect!
The problem stems from the fact that too many "citizens" do not have the mental wherewithall to function in a democracy and are the reason we have "zero tolerance" policies in schools that label a 7 year old child a "sexual predator" because he/she hugged a classmate or expels another child for drawing a gun on a piece of paper! Your NEA at work!

Is it any wonder our education system is one of the worst in any industrialized nation? The teacher's unions are run by lunatics and refuse to be judged by their performance.

Also, improper equipment, priceless!

OK, Final winner of best line of the day
len 2:02AM


"the sex police are a small minority in isolated places; the liberal restriction on freedom is much more pervasive."

You got that right, len.

And you are surprised? HOW?
The Congress is or has done the following:
Will not do a darn thing about Illegal Aliens in this country, they will not touch it, yet on TH where asked if you would hire an Illegal 86% say nope!

Congress has now said publicly that they are going ahead and going to push for Freedom Reform and that will directly attack the First Amendment.

The S. Court just said that Americans have the “RIGHT” to have a gun Yet; they turned around and put the States in charge of the “LAWS and RESTRICTIONS” in doing so. Oh the Fed. Gov. says you can have it however the”STATES” can and will make it impossible to use it and put you in jail if you do.

Police have used entrapment forever and are not required to tell you the truth; they can flat lie, to meet there end. Even if it is wrong they can do it; in fact they are no better than the criminals they are trying to catch.

There was a group of people that we are emulating today they were called the “SS”! We have become too sanctimonious.

Galltegfa -Seriously, you're comparing
withholding public funds for abortions to the outrageous intrusions into our personal freedoms?

Anti Abortion people aren't saying you can't have an abortion (though many would like that, too), they're mostly just saying don't force me to pay for it!

That pales in comparison to the Nanny State, telling everyone they MUST attend public indoctrination facilities, Oops, I mean schools, to be force fed the liberal pablum that passes for an education these days. That we must pay for that indoctrination, and that we must give up our children at ever earlier ages, so they can be indoctrinated better, before we get a chance to gain any meaningful influence on our children's minds.

The schools are the true liberals, and they are trying to control the world, by virtue of controlling the children. See how they treat your children, and you will see how they want to treat all of us. Like imbeciles, forced to use their double speak, and not to ever think for ourselves. A true liberal paradise, and with funds taken at gunpoint, for their own agenda.

The People Behind these Laws...
..are just jealous because they can't get any.

They are no better than the homosexuals who run the Human Rights Commissions in Canada.

Entrapment
Some have question the Ohio case with regard to entrapment by the police. In that particular case the police maintained that the woman was not an agent of the police or the city and therefore entrapment did not exist.

Another thing to consider was that the individual involved had a trial and a jury of his “peers” found him guilty. Folks, if you are on a jury and you think a miscarriage of justice is going on you have the right and the duty to vote not guilty regardless of the law. The judges don’t like it but there you are.

Charles Dickens on America 1842
“Too much of the old Puritan spirit exists in these parts to the present hour; but its influence has not tended that I know, to make the people less hard in their bargains, or more equal in their dealing."

KM
I have no problem with not funding abortions, stem cell research, etc. As a Libertarian, I would go so far as to dissolve most federal departments and agencies.

But you've got to be kidding if you expect this Libertarian to believe that's where social conservatives draw the line. My observation is that the social conservatives seek to enlist the government on their side in this so-called "culture war," in which more than a few advocate imposing "Christian" values on the rest of us. That includes reversing Roe V. Wade, a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, a continuation of the war on drugs (which now has our prisons so full there's no room for violent criminals), and a constant outcry for the government to reinstate prayer in the schools. And then there's the full time favorite of this site, giving Creationism (which no intellectually honest person will deny bases its curriculum on the Biblical creation stories) equal time in the science classes. Now, if that's not attempting to use the government to impose the religious views of one segment of the population on the rest, I don't know what is.

Now, I agree that there is a lot of liberal philosophy that has bled into how public education is conducted. But public education is mostly funded at the local and state level. If you have problems with the local school, you need to run for the school board, you don't need congress to weigh in on it. Or better yet, put your kids in private school and lobby for a tax credit for the value of the cost of that expense.

But just the term "social conservative" puts the lie to the proposition that people who identify themselves thusly do not have their own social agenda that calls for the government to get involved in social engineering or becoming their version of the Nanny State. And no small part of that agenda has to do with the sexual practices of consenting adults.

A Hint of Sanity
There is a vague hint of sanity on Townhall today. How about this for a reality check.

Both conservatives and liberals who are far enougth away from the Center seek to control the behavior of those with whom they disagree. Conservatives are mostly focused on controlling the personal and social behavior of others. Liberals are more interested in controlling the economic behavior of others.

There are variations, but that's teh basic outline.

This outrageous incident...
When reading stories such as this one, it might be well to bear in mind the huge number of public officials, about whom we are _constantly_ reading, caught with THEIR pants down, cheating on their spouses, embezzling public monies, taking kick-backs, being caught driving drunk, etcetera, ad infinitum. Let's also not forget the extremely high suicide rate among police officers.

That these people should, as they indulge in their own little peccadillos, be able to dictate private acts and morality is, I believe, the single, greatest fault in democracy. Public trust continues to erode in our elected officials, and I do NOT believe that what we now have is what our founding fathers really had in mind!

...anyone want King George back?

Judgment
I am fairly socially conservative. I don't want people having sex on my lawn, but I haven't spent ten seconds in the last 30 years thinking about whether they buy porn or vibrators.

The real problem is the utter lack of judgment shown by authority figures. Anyone can reasonably tell the difefrence between a guy taking a leak on a tree and a pedophile.

This reminds me A LOT of the new school rules of zero tolerance. You know, where kids bringing a butter knife in their lunchbox equals other kids bringing machetes? Oh where taking Advil at school is treated exactly the same as taking Ecstasy.

People used to have some judgment in this country; what the he|| ever happened to those days?

Sex Police
One of our rights as Americans is that an arm of the government (such as police) cannot arrest people secretly. While the press claims access to arrest records, the press is only a part of the public. We all have a right to arrest records. If your father, son, mother, sister, friend, and even enemy were arrested, shouldn't you have a right to find out what happened to them? I know it can be embarrassing for people who are arrested as "suspects." If they think the media or any of us paint them as "guilty," they can sue for either slander or libel. But the important thing is: No one can arrest YOU or ME secretly and make us disappear. Let us keep that right.

Give me a break.
I don't want to hear about, or see anyone else's sex life or tastes, no matter what their preference. Keep it indoors.

Also, stop kicking Christians around. If you study what it means to be a true Christian, you'd find that it is almost antithetical to what a social conservative or libertarian believes.

The Censors are at it again
I see my earlier comments were deleted. I suppose the TH So-Cons freaked.

So much for free speech in America.

OBSESSED WITH SEX

.....STOSSEL ...How much time did you spend at Chippendales doing research for this article? .....COLOSSUS

To Reiterate, Approximately
"I asked the Family Research Council's Sprigg whom the government protects when it closes down sex shops. "The government is protecting actually the people who patronize those shops because I don't think it's in their interest to use pornography and sex toys." Give me a break."

John, you are so on the money with this one! These Social Conservatives want to interfere in everyone's personal lifestyle choices. They started with the gays, and now they are coming for you.

It's nice to see that thus far, we have not had to read the ranting screeds from the resident TH loons who believe the role of government is to dictate what we do in our sex live.

Now, let's see how long it takes the TH Troll Censors to delete that one.

I'm really puzzled...
I'm really puzzled by this column and many of the posts by readers. A "war on sex" is precisely what traditional conservatives should be supporting. All of the examples of prosecution that Stossel presents as actions of an intrusive government should be what conservatives support. Libertarians might object, but not honest-to-God conservatives. So get with it; suppress sex for the sake of the American way of life and to the greater glory of God. That's what it's all about, isn't it?

Caligula
"These Social Conservatives want to interfere in everyone's personal lifestyle choices. "

I'm socially conservative. See my post above. I don't care what (or who) people do, as long as it's not on my lawn or in a major intersection.

Gimme a break!
Where is the common sense here, and why are people so caught up in SOMEONE ELSE’S SEX LIFE? If some woman wants to have a vibrator, why should I care? If some guy wants to get some porn and watch it, it doesn’t bother me. If women want to go to a Chippendale’s show or men want to go to a “Gentlemen’s Club” so be it. The only function that the state should have regarding sex is protecting children from predators, and locking up rapists and child pornographers…not worrying about whether my wife and I watch a porno to spice things up every once in awhile…and learn some new tricks ;-)!

Flagwaver
I concur 100% with you.

No sex please,we're Social Conservatives
KM: "Seriously, you're comparing withholding public funds for abortions to the outrageous intrusions into our personal freedoms? Anti Abortion people aren't saying you can't have an abortion (though many would like that, too), they're mostly just saying don't force me to pay for it!

Relax KM, and do some research. The use of federal funds for abortions has been banned since the Reagan administration. Please, put this tired rumor to rest. Your tax dollars arent't paying for abortions. With W., they aren't even being used for birth control education, which is silly, because that would cut down on aborions. So much for social conservative logic on all matters sexual. Their idea is that sex is something disgusting and nasty, to be done only as one's duty to conceive.

KM: "Find any law that intrudes into your personal life, in your own home, or car, or some public place where it's none of the government's business, and you will invariably find a Democrat at the core of the law. I'm no bible thumper, but I know a lot, and they don't care at all what you do behind closed doors. They've been persecuted, too, and don't want the big nanny intruding into their lives either."

BS. These people definitely DO want to intrude in your personal life. Also, put to rest the tired old "we are so persecuted as Chrisians" crap. They want to persecute everyone else, especially the sane.

Liberals on 1st Amendment

Obama, Liberals and Democrats claim they are heavily invested in defending 'Freedom of Speech'.

Unless you criticize Michelle Obama or Prophet Obama - that is 'unacceptable'.

Unless you do NOT use 'Politically Correct' speech - that is 'bigoted'.

Unless you are a conservative talk show host - that is NOT 'fair'.

Unless you say Obama-Messiah is naive - that is 'racist'.

Unless you say Obamunism would destroy the American Economy - that is 'antipathy'.

Unless you say that Islamic schools should not be on Government property - that is 'xenophobic'.

Unless you think sexual deviates are NOT normal - that is 'homophobic'.

Unless you say women are beautiful and delightful creatures - that is 'misogyny'.

Unless you teach your children to fear God - that is 'child abuse'.

Unless you use a satirical cartoon depicting the Obamas in all of their glory - that is all of the above.

Where's the john?
Maybe the guy has uromiatisis (ala Seinfeld's parking garage episode). He could die if he is not allowed to relieve himself in the absence of a porta potty.

As far as the article in general, Stossel wants his cake with extra frosting. Newsflash, laws are a requirement for a free society to function. The cherry picked sex crimes in your article are just a flaw in the entire system and why lawyers make big bucks and why judges should be allowed to JUDGE. It may not be perfect but it works better than most.

Why Has Judgement Failed
AZPhil bring up an interesting point, i.e. the issue of judgement.

The examples shown by Stossel seem to exemplify a failure of judgement on the part of officials. In that context, these are certainly not the only examples of such failure in public officials.

Relying on operational judgement places responsibility on lower level officials who are closer to the actual cases at hand. Higher level officials, those who generate laws and policies, have written judgement out of the equation.

Instead every outcome is mandated: every decision is prescribed. One reason for this shift is the constant whining, by everyone on all sides of the aisle, when an individual judgement turns out to be wrong. Every mistake becomes another salvo in the great War Between The Red and The Blue.

In short, we have met the enemy and he is us.

Liberals and eavesdropping

I'd like to underscore the fact that in 2006, when the Congress was controlled by Bill Frist and Denny Hastert, the administration tried to get a bill passed legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, but was unable. They had to wait until the Congress was controlled by Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to accomplish that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats have complained bitterly about illegal eavesdropping and wire tapping.

So the Democrats made it legal!

Republicans tried to get a bill passed legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, but was unable. They had to wait until the Congress was controlled by Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to accomplish that.

Nancy Pelosi explained that it was necessary to pass the bill for political expediency:

"The congressional Democratic leadership explains that sacrificing the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law is necessary to win some more swing seats."
================================================
Now Satire:

Obama-Messiah and his glassy eyed followers can sing: 'Trust and Obey there will be no other way'

Now Obama can listen to anyone talking about him and charge them with hate speech.

Democrats say they will look at this issue at the end of the 1st Obama presidency to determine what else should be added.

Caligula
"Their idea is that sex is something disgusting and nasty, to be done only as one's duty to conceive."

Like I said, I am somewhat socially conservative, and believe me, you can not imagine how wrong you are about this.

TS
Are you claiming that Nancy Pelosi said this?

"The congressional Democratic leadership explains that sacrificing the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law is necessary to win some more swing seats."

It's much worse than this
And now we have the hysteria over child predators to go with this--now let's forget that sexual crimes against children are down, that most children that are abused are abused by someone they know and trust and such sexual predator laws would have no effect on such nor would they have stopped say Joseph Smith from abducting and killing Carlie Brucia. But feeding the paranoia does help the ratings for Fox, MSNBC, etc and helps groups like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children fund raise and helps politicians stay in power as they can pass "tough laws" to sooth those quivering in fear. Nothing the news media and the politicians love more than a terrified populace.

The guy urinating in public was lucky. He could have been placed on a stupid sex registry which would forbid him to live close to a school, a church, a playground, a bus stop and a host of other places and since the lists are public the idiotic public would have no idea why he was on the list--they'd just think he was a twisted child rapist living near their children.

One woman was forced to move from her home because she was on a sex registry. Her crime? When she was 17 she had consensual oral sex with her 15-year old boyfriend.

How to make this stop? Remove personal immunity from cops, judges and prosecutors and when they do something that goes well beyond the bounds of common sense, they get sued. When cops and prosecutors start losing their homes in judgments because they tried to prosecute someone for relieving themselves behind a tree in a park, this nonsense will stop. And will I shed a tear for the cop...not on your life.

Jack
Good question. I do know Democrats have been willing to dispose of the 1st Amendment (hate speech, Fairness Doctrine, Speech Codes), and live to undercut the 2nd (D.C. is STILL trying to ban guns after SCOTUS said no). The 3rd doesn't come into play much nowadays, so logically, the 4th would be their next target.

Akagi
"How to make this stop? Remove personal immunity from cops, judges and prosecutors and when they do something that goes well beyond the bounds of common sense, they get sued."

As i said earlier, when you have "zero-tolerance" laws written, that leads to "zero judgment". Send your kids to school with a cap gun or a squirt gun if you don't believe me.

Don't be stupid
Goalieman, don't be an idiot, we have enough of them on TH as it is. No one is saying cops shouldn't crack down on people having sex in public. But the cops shouldn't be so stupid (I know it is asking much for them not to be stupid, but I'm asking) to arrest someone for simply peeing behind a tree. The cops that did that should be feed to sharks and if a D.A. (it means more than district attorney--begins with dumb) prosecutes this, they should be burned at the stake. If I was a judge, any any ADA brought this into my court I'd dismiss it with prejudice and do everything in my power that the cops that brought this forward and the ADA would live a living hell from now to the end of time.

Stossel is 100% Dead On
I am a libertarian and fully agree with Stossel's article. He is using selected examples of ridiculous laws to make a point: too many people think they can legislate morality. The result is poorly written laws which are selectively enforced and inherently unfair. Two cases Mr. Stossel didn't mention was the 4 year old preschooler who was arrested for sexual harrassment of a fellow classmate because he couldn't keep his hands to himself. Or, the example of the Atlanta teenager who was thrown in jail for having consensual sex with his girlfriend.

The Puritans were thrown out of England because of their many bizarre beliefs. Sadly, we built our country on some of their ideas which constantly bite us in the end.

Caligula
You do understand the concept of loopholes right?

Abortions may not be directly funded by tax money however abortion groups do get tax money to fund other projects (including hiring lawyers to protect them from lawsuits related to abortions). This in turn frees up cash flow so these groups can perform abortions. Its a backdoor way to fund abortions through tax money. Not a myth. A reality.

As a Libertarian, you should be upset at it, not defending it.


Cap guns?
Oh worse than that. One 3rd grader got suspended for bringing a plastic picnic knife to spread her peanut butter and jelly on her bread at lunch, one girl was strip searched for being suspected of bringing in Midol (another student told the admins she had and was strip searched), a 18 year old reenactor was suspended for having a precussion cap rifle in his trunk--see if he was good he could get off what 4 rounds a minute? Oh reenactors typically don't have minnie balls with them. The "cartridges" are simply wadding and powder. An Eagle Scout was suspended for having a hatchett in his trunk, a senior girl was suspended as a knife had fallen behind her car seat when she was moving, kids suspended for pointing chicken fingers at each other. Hard to see who is more stupid, the cops arresting people for peeing or school admins. I think maybe a tie.

Akagi
"Oh worse than that. One 3rd grader got suspended for bringing a plastic picnic knife to spread her peanut butter and jelly on her bread at lunch, one girl was strip searched for being suspected of bringing in Midol (another student told the admins she had and was strip searched), a 18 year old reenactor was suspended for having a precussion cap rifle in his trunk--see if he was good he could get off what 4 rounds a minute? "

Excatly my point. I disagree with your idea of MORE lawsuits, however. If you notoce, every time some bonehead principal comes on TV explaining this, he/she has the glassy-eyed "Stepford Wife" look. They are so farid of being sued now that they think the only way to avoid it is by strict, non-judgmental (I mean the negative connotation of that) enforcement of bullsh!t laws.

Far from your solution, I think a better one might be to execute every single lawyer in America and start over.

tahssard
Well once conservatives believed in limited government and freedom now most so-called conservatives many of which reside here on TH are really Theocratic Auhtoritarians who have no problems using the power of government as long as it is destroying freedoms they don't like. The FRC is just as anti-freedom as anything you'd find on the left. Founded by the nutcase Dobson and we have the equally nutcase Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association who attacked Saving Private Ryan for using language he deemed foul as they stormed the beaches of Normandy. They complained to the FCC when it was aired on broadcast networks (ABC I think). I said then I thought every member of the AFA should have been rounded up and sent to Iraq to clear explosives and see what words they would use when people around them who they knew got blown to bits. Notice how communists love to use people and democractic and T.A.'s (see above) love to use family? Dobson and Wildmon are no more pro-family than the DPRK is pro-democracy.

Okay, but don't stop with the lawyers
"Far from your solution, I think a better one might be to execute every single lawyer in America and start over."

If we can also execute the cops and school admins, politicians and others that violate common sense too. Then we agree.

AZPhil Saddens Me
Just after I make the point that the failure in judgement is ubiquitous and that the problem is related to the way we select specific cases mainly to find a way to trash our political opponents, Phil writes: "I do know Democrats have been willing to dispose of the 1st Amendment (hate speech, Fairness Doctrine, Speech Codes), and live to undercut the 2nd (D.C. is STILL trying to ban guns after SCOTUS said no). The 3rd doesn't come into play much nowadays, so logically, the 4th would be their next target."

Proving that yes, we are quite willing to abandon judgement in favor of political trash talk.

In regard to the 1st amendment, it would also make sense to mention the MCCAIN Feingold laws and the ever present effort by the Family Research Council to control the content of what adults may see and read.

The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated, but neiotehr will teh conservative led effort to mandate "fairness" on University faculties.

In short, pretending this is a problem for one side but not the other just adds to the problem.


You are right, Nam
"There are no exceptions to this."

I believe you should be your nanny and most others believe the state should be--either to protect me from my immorality, my stupidity (I'm too stupid to invest on my own, so we have SS for you; you are too stupid to wear a seatbelt so we'll pass a law to make you wear it) or some other defect that I have.

I'd like to see all the democratic socialists and all the theocratic authoritatians put in a rocket and shot into the center of the sun and then we could just start over.

Georgia too
Yes Vic:

The world (well the country) is full of idiot cops, idiot district attorneys, idiot judges, idiot politicians and just plain idiots that let the other idiots get away with this nonsense. Georgia had a woman on their sex registry for having consentual oral sex with her 15 year old boyfriend as I said shen she was 17. Georgia, filled with many brilliant people--yes I am being very sarcastic--passed this idiotic sex registry list law which required her to move from her home because it was too close to a school bus stop--now in her 30s, married with her own children. Does this make sense? But to the idiots in this state, so iot seems. I've never seen so many stupid people under one roof in my life--that roof being the roof of the state capitol.


WTH
"I say if you don't like your local laws on morals and sex... MOVE AWAY!"

I'd rather have state representative to have common sense as well as those local represenatives. Should Alabamastan be allowed to pass idiotic laws, yes. I don't think Stossel is saying they shouldn't be able to or that Washington should pass all laws. He is saying officials in Alabama shouldn't be so stupid. Again, asking alot. Since those in Montgomery aren't much more bright that those in Austin, Atlanta or Columbia.

Akagi
"If we can also execute the cops and school admins, politicians and others that violate common sense too. Then we agree."

Sounds good.

TruLib
Yes and it helps their quotas. They aren't just for traffic tickets. In Atlanta they led to basically the murder of a 93 year old woman by the police who then planted evidence of drugs. Thanfully, those police are now in prison.

Jack
"Proving that yes, we are quite willing to abandon judgement in favor of political trash talk."

Merely stating facts. Democrats do in fact favor speech codes and the Fairness doctrine, and lie awake nights trying to figure out back-door repeals to the 2nd Amendment.

The McCain-Feingold law was named after the two liberals who sponsored it. I've never heard of the FRC, but tell me who they are and what they've done. If it is in violation of the 1st Amendment, I won't defend them.

Philirony
It seems you wrote this in a state of blissful ignorance, completely unaware of the irony.

"Merely stating facts. Democrats do in fact favor speech codes and the Fairness doctrine, and lie awake nights trying to figure out back-door repeals to the 2nd Amendment"

Specifically, while you claim "Democrats do...", I, a Democrat do not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, speech codes, or any back door repeals of anything.

It's really quite easy to create straw men. That must be why so many people do it.

One of FRC's big "victories" was tossed out just yesterday, when the courts dumped the fines levied on a TV network as a result of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction.

in teh larger sese, I woudl suggest that your continued effort to tash talk hte left whiel ignoring the right is just another example of the loss of judgement that is at issue.

Rick C
Shoot, that is why I play golf in the first place. I am in BIG trouble the next time I use my putter on the course!

Akagi
Yes, GA has a lot of idiots. They all came from out of State and they all live North of Macon.

We didn't have all those stupid laws on the books when I grew up there. I guess they were needed after everyone else started moving in.

Pornography and sex toys,

Akagi Location: GA
Reply # 85
Date: Jul 23, 2008 - 12:42 PM EST
Subject: execute every single lawyer in America and start over."
=======
Akagi, you are partly right, you need to execute the married lawyers also.

-------------


Pornography and sex toys, are both helpful in reducing pregnancy rates. Think about it, how many millions of times a day, in all parts of the world, does someone have a sexual climax while looking at porno, or using a sex toy.

Just imagine how many unwanted pregnancies would result if all those orgasms were required by law, to occur while having a “normal” sex act.

Bet you never thought of that before, did you? And I wonder, why did I think of it?

Oh, and by the way, I hope each of you people who know exactly how a cop should act, are in line first thing in the morning, to join the force, and become a gentle cop, knowledgeable of all laws and the desires of all people.


Lot's of Pee Partys in America
I pee in my compost pile all the time. You're supposed to keep that stuff wet for it to 'work.'

If I were arrested would people say, "What a waste."

Jack
"Specifically, while you claim "Democrats do...", I, a Democrat do not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, speech codes, or any back door repeals of anything."

Okay, if you took a poll of every Democrat in Congress asking about FD, then every Republican, which party do you think would be more in favor of it? I can't count every single adult in America, but I can look at what I see in Congress and draw (obvious) conclusions.

Jim
"Akagi, you are partly right, you need to execute the married lawyers also."

Hey, that was MY idea - Akagi just pasted it!


Sorry Jim
"Oh, and by the way, I hope each of you people who know exactly how a cop should act, are in line first thing in the morning, to join the force, and become a gentle cop, knowledgeable of all laws and the desires of all people."

When cops act like idiots and believe me many do, they shouldn't get a pass. Sorry, not into the whole hero worship thing and cops can do no wrong mentality. If you arrest people for peeing in a park or murder 93 year olds and plant drugs in their homes, you should be fed to sharks. No praise from me.

Oh and as if cops had nothing better to do--you know speed traps, donut runs:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/200 8/07/23/gwinnett_students_misbehavior.html

People used to call most of these things pranks--now they have become criminal investigations. What a sad country the US has become, sad and humorless to boot. Oh and idiotic--see post about peanut butter and jelly and the picnic knife if you don't agree with idiotic.


MellorSJ
In what way are you less free as the result of the presidency of GWB? What could you do before he became president that you cannot now do as a result of his policies?

SEX CRIME HYSTERIA

.....Many so-called sex-offenders are guilty of no more than consensual sex with a minor, usually their girl friend, but in our hysterical rush to protect children, they are painted with the same broad brush as the 3% of true pedophile predators who scout playgrounds looking for victims ...

.....Most of these laws are reactionary and do nothing to prevent these crimes that are usually committed by close family friends or members of the family ...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure .....COLOSSUS

Akagi and AZPhil
Can I get an exemption from your "kill all the single and married lawyers" law you just passed, since I am in fact a "married lawyer". However, I agree with everything you guys have been saying about this article and related stories.

Believe it or not, John Stossel was the one that opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of the Left when he did that 20/20 special about Free Speech on campuses. I've been a fan every since and it certainly made be realize that I'm more libertarian than I thought.

I am also on the Board of my HOA so as to make sure that no stupid rules get enacted and to get rid of the ones that are stupid.

Weirdly enough, we have a liberal on the Board (he's got Obama stickers on his Prius [but I own a Highlander Hybrid so I can't say much on that account] and buys carbon credits), but he's actually with me on getting rid of dumb rules and not enacting any new dumb ones. He's not much of a fascist in the HOA department and I'm happy about that.

But I digress.

Anyway, please let me know if I got the exemption as I need to be prepared to defend myself by exercising my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms (and use 'em!).

;)

Cleverness of ...
"In what way are you less free as the result of the presidency of GWB? What could you do before he became president that you cannot now do as a result of his policies?"

Just a few:
1. I am harassed at airports
2. I am spied on (phone call and email tapping)
3. I have less of my own money to spend


Paleocon
"I have no problem with crackdowns where pedophiles have turned public parks into hunting preserves. "

Excuse me, how does physically attacking a minor compare with two consenting adults revealing their gender-specifics to each other?


Gee, AZ Phil,
You say "I do know Democrats have been willing to dispose of the 1st Amendment (hate speech, Fairness Doctrine, Speech Codes), "

I never, ever challenge the first amendment when you use a pulbic forum like TH to call me a c--t.

len
"the liberal restriction on freedom is much more pervasive "

Oh, Yeah? If I try to use the correct word for a male organ on conservative TH, I get censored.

When AZ Phil calls me the C word it goes right through.

Who is restricting what freedom here?

Two extremes
Although I now live in California, I still call Lubbock home. And yes, it is a conservative town and arresting the Chippendales was a bit draconian. Also closing sex toy shops or having to buy toys for "medical purposes" is insane.

But please remember the other extreme ... pedophiles walk free in Vermont.

"It's a madhouse!"

baseballdoc #102...
...is dead right. The politicians jumped on this "protect the children" kick because it made them look good in view of the sensational tabloid reporting of genuine sexual abuse or molestation cases. As a result, now most people caught in the web are young men in their late teens or early twenties who had consensual sex with teenage girlfriends. Several states have written bizarre formulations of various "age combinations" into the law which establish what is and is not illegal in a very arbitrary fashion.

In Georgia, grandstanding prosecutors, seeking conservative religious support, have begun to prosecute as sex offenders parents who have given their high-school aged children permission to have sex at home.

Obviously, no one is in favor of leniency for true "stalker-type" sex offenders. Just another example of how government abuses the citizenry by turning a duty to protect on its head.

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

President of the Board

ladykrystyna Location: CA
Reply # 103
Date: Jul 23, 2008 - 4:40 PM EST

You mention that you are on the Board of your HOA. Well, a suggestion. Back about 1970, we bought a Condominium, before most people even knew how to spell the word, and I was elected President of the Board.

This was before there were any laws telling us what to do and how to do it, but all went fine after I adopted a special rule.

This building was an apartment building that had been converted to a Condo, so after we moved in, there were still many things that needed improved, and other things that residents wanted.

I soon adopted the rule that said,

“The person who presents a request, is the chairman of the committee who must see that it is done, and done properly.”

And WOW, did that ever do the job.


Mellor
YOU SAID: Just a few:
1. I am harassed at airports
2. I am spied on (phone call and email tapping)
3. I have less of my own money to spend

For 1. - blame the terrorists.
For 2. - Proof that anyone is actually listening in on your calls or reading your e-mails?
For 3. - Well, that's a general governmental problem that certainly won't be solved by the Democrats who don't believe in tax cuts or spending cuts, only more spending and more taxing. At least some Repubs still believe in less spending and tax cuts.

Try again.

MellorSJ2
Oh and the de facto take over of public education by the Federal government via NCLB, the loss of freedom of speech via McCain-Feingold which he signed, the biggest run up of Federal spending since LBJ, and on and on.


Cleverness
""In what way are you less free as the result of the presidency of GWB? What could you do before he became president that you cannot now do as a result of his policies?"

I'm less free to do or say anything that may make the President decide that I am offensive enough to throw in jail for an indeterminate amount of time without charges, be subject to torture, and be officially "disappeared."

You, like AZ Phil, may love to imagine that liberals are after your freedoms, I can't remember a Demoractic President since Roosevelt who gave himself the power to arrest and confine people based on their presumed loyalties. But even Roosevelt, so far as I know, didn't condone torturing the Japanese -Americans that he imprisoned.

Jim
Thank you for that. The funny thing is that no one in our neighborhood even participates! No one comes to meetings.

Except for recently when a new person moved in who was a renter and got off on the wrong foot with a teenage son having a couple of parties and other residents just becoming ridiculous in their complains once that party situation was addressed. Space limits my ability to get into the details, but it was totally ridiculous.

Otherwise, luckily, we have no real complaints or problems, but I like to keep it that way. All we need is some "Nazi" to get on the Board. Our mgmt company rep said that she has one Board that literally likes the neighborhood policed ALL the time to catch all kinds of infractions. Even the liberal guy on the Board agreed that was RIDICULOUS. In fact, he was totally advocating for us to not get too trigger-happy with the rules.

Most of our problems are taken care of by making some rules for the safety of the many children in our neighborhood (speed limits, no dogs in the park b/c people are pigs and won't p/u the poop, no skateboarding in the park [it's small] b/c they are destroying the tables and endangering the smaller children - there is NO parental supervision most times). And leaving others alone - parking rules unless it gets out of hand, which it really doesn't.

But I will keep your suggestion in mind.

Thanks.

Cheers.

No need, ladyK
The question was to name some ways in which I am less free now than I was eight years ago as a result of GWB's policies.

For 1, I do. But only partly. Had GWB's policy been to issue everyone a rubber-bullet gun on boarding instead of creating yet another self-perpetuating bureaucracy, he would have no share in that blame.

2. I don't need proof. All I need to know is that he _can_. On me, or anyone else.

3. Did I say that the Democrats were better? I don't think I did.

Try again. Or better yet, don't bother.

(Pity. I thought you were one the sane ones.)

Terrorists Without Religion
If a gang gets established in any area in America, they are probably there to stay. Can't violate their rights, due process, or their "human" rights. If that happens, the ACLU and others will have the police charged with war crimes. Meanwhile, the gangbangers run rampant. Doing whatever the hell they want to whoever the hell they want.

Lady K
Blame the terrorists because we are subject to harassment at airports?

Why don't we just blame them for the loss of all freedoms? That we are now subject to "arrest and imprisonment without trial, charges, lawyers or family contact? Blame the "terrorists?"

When Roosevelt interred Japanese Americans, should we have blamed the Japanese army?

Should we blame Abu Ghraib on the Iraqis?


Mellor
I am one of the sane ones. But the stuff you just said makes me wonder if YOU are.

1. Can you actually see the government issuing people rubber-bullet guns! The D.C. government is flouting the decision by SCOTUS on the gun ban and you think that such a law would have ever passed Congress to even get signed into law by the President. Delusions of granduer, anyone?

2. There are lots of things the government CAN do, but doesn't. I haven't heard of too many otherwise law-abiding American citizens that weren't doing anything wrong getting spied on or hauled into jail permanently under the Patriot Act. They may be doing the spying and if he wants to read my e-mail, go ahead. He'll be bored stiff inside of 2 seconds; same with my phone calls. Until I see people disappearing left and right, I'm not going to worry.

3. Okay, you didn't (finally found your post). So what's the point of trying to blame it all on Bush if the Dems are no better.

So, yes, I will bother.

Cheers.

Wait a minute
I saw Stossel on TV recently saying how okay it is that in Europe, advertisers show T&A all over the place. European children turn out just fine, says he (in fact, they are significantly more promiscuous than Americans). He did not just mean that they should have the freedom to do that. He meant that it was morally okay. Stossel is a closet pervert.

He is right about the rights violations regarding the indoor incidents (Chippendales, sex toy shop), but he is wrong about the outdoor park arrests. There is no such thing as a right to urinate or expose yourself in public. The cops probably had good reason to arrest these people, and Stossel is covering it up. His version of events sound fishy. A man committing suicide because he was arrested for urinating in public and being fired for it? It is possible, but the more likely explanation is that Stossel is showing some dishonesty here.

Stossel, the cause of liberty is not a pretext for you to come out of the closet and impose your sexual perversions on the rest of us.

disasterbabe
If the terrorists hadn't hit us on 9/11 using the planes, we would not be going through the security we are going through now. If we didn't go through the security we are going through now and the terrorists got through AGAIN, then what? Are we supposed to do nothing? Is the security really that inconvenient? I don't find it to be. If they start strip searching everyone in full view of the public, then I'll complain. Until then, no I won't.

Your other examples are just as stupid especially because I didn't say "blame the terrorists" to the one about "spying", did I? I just asked for proof that Mellor was being spied on. So no, I don't blame the Iraqis for Abu Ghraib or the Japanese army for the internments.

You really are a "disaster" aren't you? Try Hooked on Phonics again and some reading comprehension classes and then check back in.

Cheers.

Missing the boat ... in so many ways
Let's start at the bottom, shall we, LadyK?

I am not (trying to) blame it all on Bush. I am saying he is a terrible disappointment. On many MANY fronts. Try to keep the knee from the jerk, will ya?

I'd like to understand how you see people disappear :) A transporter, maybe? This is an extremely shortsighted view. Next, you'll be telling me I don't need privacy because I'm a law-abiding citizen.

There was a time not so long ago when you could walk onto a plane with your gun. You telling me that a dart gun in every passenger's hands wouldn't put a stop to this? We're not all Mark Binghams or like the brave passengers who stopped Richard Hunt (the liquid bomb in his foot fellow), but being armed can make a big difference.

Wendy
Geez, issues have we? There is no perversion here by Stossel. I happen to agree that perhaps Europeans have a "healthier" attitude towards sex, especially given the fact that their teen pregnancy rate is nowhere near where ours is, as well as their abortion rate.

I'm not saying they are RIGHT, per se, I'm just saying that OUR way doesn't seem to be any better, does it?

And peeing in public - if there is an emergency, no public bathroom available, etc. - then yeah, the cops should no better than to waste the public's time and money on prosecuting such a thing. If there was no one but the cops around to see it, WHO CARES?

Committing suicide is absolutely possible considering that you could wind up on a sex offender list and have to register and you couldn't let your kids have friends over unless you weren't there, etc. IT RUINS THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!

Sex offender registries should have been left to the real pedophiles and perverts. This is out of hand and that's all Stossel is trying to say.

Another comedienne
"Stossel is a closet pervert."

Sure, Wendy.

ladykrystyna:
Several years ago Congress, at Clinton's request, passed the Privacy Improvement Act. It requires all manufacturers to install chips in phones, fax machines, and computers to allow the government to record and scan all messages. They generally do it by computer, looking for code words such a bomb, terrorist, etc. Then someone has to actually listen or read the item to detmine what the message said.

The words to scan for can be changed easily to things like revolt, execute Congressmen, etc.

The equipment is accessed by the government by calling your telephone number. It rings once or twice and then is connected. It takes less than a second to record everything on your equipment. If anyone does answer, you hear nothing at all since it is a computer.

For instance, this message will most likely be studied by someone in Washington since I used some of the code words they search for.

Everyone is being spied upon. Get used to it. Just for your info, over half the spy satellites sent up are pointed at the U.S. They take a picture of everything in the U.S. every four seconds. Don't sunbath outside in the nude; you will be ogled.

Fine, Mellor
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, Bush has done some stupid things, but I wouldn't say that it's like Big Brother around here. Sorry. I just don't see it.

People disappearing: Really, Mellor, you are smarter than that aren't you? I didn't mean LITERALLY as in "transporter" or "disapparating" (see Harry Potter for reference). I meant, news reports of people disappearing. You don't think the liberal media would be all over it if people starting disappearing. That's what I meant. That kind of stuff can't be kept secret for long, you know. Unless we're going into tinfoil hat conspiracies of Blackwater getting ready for a coup before the election and the secret EO containing the right of succession (see Slate - its a hoot!).

And I just don't buy that the government is looking at EVERYBODY's stuff. Where's the proof of that? The way I see it is they are keeping on eye on the typical traffic where something suspicious would actually come up. Why would they waste their time on anything else? Do you really think they have the manpower for that?

And I'm not saying that the rubber bullet thing wouldn't work. Heck, having an unknown Federal Marshall works because they don't know which flights have them and who they are.

I'm just saying that IT WOULD NEVER GET PASSED so we have what will get passed and that's the security we're going through now. It's somewhat inconvenient, but I haven't really been inconvenienced enough to complain about it. I always got to the airport 2-3 hours ahead anyway, domestic or int'l flights. I'm anal that way. So it's no bother to me.

Hope that clears it up.

Cheers.

Stossel and his Band of Libertines1
What a lousy and reprehensible column. First, let me say that social conservatives are not out to have a "nanny state" as many of the foolish posters remark here. If you wish to make a charge against us, at least have the decency to recognize that we do not wish to pamper you and take care of you as a nanny does. We would more than like to beat your heads in when you violate individual rights, and act in manners that are otherwise abusive or reckless.

Part of the remarkably foolish presumption of libertarians is that somehow laws instituting social controls are somehow meant to "protect" people, when they are in fact meant to accomplish another end: promoting virtue (excellence), and the forging of good character.

Take for example the Michael Vick case. I'm not a leftist hippie. I firmly believe animals do not have rights. Yet at the same time, I fully support Vick's imprisonment, and having a law on the books that can put him in prison for killing dogs.

45caliber
Thanks for the info.

Even still, I'm not that worried unless they are taking the one word and immediately coming to my house to drag me to the Gulag based on nothing but that one word.

Not that I fully trust the gov't mind you, but if we all think they are a bunch of idiots that can't find their butts with 2 hands and a flashlight, I don't see how we can be worried that they'll start doing as I laid out above.

I'm actually more worried about LIBERALS doing that - looking for Hate speech and such - than I would be worried about CONSERVATIVES looking for words like "bomb" and things that TERRORISTS talk about, again, especially since I haven't heard one word about someone who was actually taken away for just saying the word "bomb" during a conversation regardless of the context.

Nude sunbathing. Man, if they ever looked in on me doing that, they'd NEVER come back around. :)

Cheers.

Stossel and his Band of Libertines2
Sexual exhibitionism is a form of immodesty. It is salacious, sordid, lewd and obscene. Such behavior openly invites the valuation of another person as a materialistic object of gratification than respecting the dignity of that human being through the deliberate destruction of one's own dignity. By becoming accustomed to this lack of dignity, it deadens one's sensibilities and becomes typical to regard other people in the same way. Judgments and valuations become based more on aesthetics, shock value, and the ability to be obnoxious, resulting in a more vain and petty society.

Such conduct is to be expected from savages, not members of an allegedly civil society. What's more, no one seems to have noted that these actions were in accordance with the law. Last I checked, Conservatives also believed in the rule of law, no? Or is it that to libertarians puerile pursuits to the detriment of the attainment of excellence now supercede that law?

Libertarians are a pitiful and pathetic bunch. Their lust for being libertines is deservedly spat upon.

No sense of humor?
Or a lack of reading comprehension?

LadyK writes: "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Yes, Bush has done some stupid things, but I wouldn't say that it's like Big Brother around here. Sorry. I just don't see it."

Once again, I never said it was. I was asked how my freedoms have been curtailed under Bush. I gave an example. Please try to understand what I write.

"People disappearing: Really, Mellor, you are smarter than that aren't you? I didn't mean LITERALLY as in "transporter" or "disapparating" (see Harry Potter for reference)."

This one could be either. Did she not see the ":)" Or is this one no sense of humor?

"I meant, news reports of people disappearing. You don't think the liberal media would be all over it if people starting disappearing. That's what I meant. That kind of stuff can't be kept secret for long, you know."

I suggest you try explaining that to some Muslim woman whose husband has been kidnapped. You might to watch a movie called "Rendition."

"And I just don't buy that the government is looking at EVERYBODY's stuff. Where's the proof of that? The way I see it is they are keeping on eye on the typical traffic where something suspicious would actually come up. Why would they waste their time on anything else? Do you really think they have the manpower for that?"

I am definitely beginning to wonder now. You're a _lawyer_??? This is all done by computer. Read 45caliber's excellent explanation.

"And I'm not saying that the rubber bullet thing wouldn't work. I'm just saying that IT WOULD NEVER GET PASSED so we have what will get passed and that's the security we're going through now."

Point taken. (mumbles) Something about the gullibility of the American public.

Stoic Patriot
Wait, Mellor, we have another one! (See I knew we'd agree on something :) ).

Stoic Patriot: Your example is really not on point at all.

Vick's actions harmed an otherwise helpless animal. Of course, he should be punished for it.

But sex toys, porn (well some would say so, but women rule that industry more than most people think - and they get paid more than their male counterparts), and having to pee in public because of an emergency do not add up to anything that needs to punished or prosecuted in any way shape or form because it does not otherwise harm anyone if done by CONSENTING ADULTS. Public indecency should be left to those that INTEND for others to see them, not a jogger in the park that had to pee.

How exactly does banning sex toys "forge good character" or promote "virtue"?

Your answer should be a doozy! Can't wait!

Speaking of freedom
...Welcome to what unrestricted libertarianism gets you:

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/64ebcd7e-7bc4-4c65-93a3-49bc 4f9dc0e0?comments=true#comments

An article referenced by MKH, entitled the "Paris Hilton-ization of America's Little Girls", or as I would call them, the Prostitots.

Ask yourself this: is America a better society and is it a better place to live when this is the sort of freedom we allow ourselves and our kids to enjoy? To act like gluttonous, hedonistic pigs, perverting all that is in view? Such freedom seems to lack a certain something known as... class.

i actually agree with
MELLOR!

If everyone banded together and carried a dart gun onto their flight, or God-forbid--fingernail clippers(!)--what would happen?

Or if every smoking customer lit up a cigarette at the same time--can't you just see the little nanny men running around? "put that out!, put that out!"

Or what if we ripped down the "calorie count" signs in New York? Or all the men peed on the Golf Course? (yeah, we women ARE a bit more civilized)

It's time for both Europe and the US to find some backbone! Did we learn NOTHING from Prohibition?

Stoic Patriot, meet Wendy
Wendy, meet Stoic.

You two make a fine pair.

What?
What is the point of this article? Communities don't have the right to make laws for themselves? We should have absolute anarchy? Stupidest article I've ever read. You don't have confidentiality when arrested. Cops are stupid, what's new? Stossel is not a journalist (by today's standard I guess he is) he's just a sensationalist.

I'd better flip-flop
Verby agrees with me. I must be thinking wrongly somehow....

Nah... Must be Verby! :)


(How ya bin, anyway?)

it was a brief moment
but now it's gone, Mellor.

What's your point with Stoic? I checked the link. Clearly you have no children...which, come to think of it, is a GOOD thing.

Verbivore
If you read my post, you would know what my point is: that you ask yourself the question whether or not you live in a better society due to that sort of freedom being available.

Freedom is not inherently good or bad. It depends upon the manner in which it is used. In so far as it is employed to coarsen social discourse, sew the seeds of vice instead of virtue, or act in an otherwise abusive manner, it is to be shunned, and if government action can be taken in a manner that is not excessive in its response, curbed.

In so far as it is key to the existence of individual rights, to not be imprisoned without having committed some transgression, to not be owned as a slave, or to articulate one's own ideology, it is to be admired. But when libertarians stress freedom, it, like freedom of speech, strikes me as neither good nor bad intrinsically. Slander, crying fire in a crowded theater, giving away national secrets are all bad things.

Question the subtype, and question the value of particular forms of freedom. One does not judge blacks for instance as good or bad (for to do so would be racist), but particular blacks as good or bad people. So too should this notion be applied to freedom, and government actions regarding said freedom.

My point, verby dear
is that Stoic is another frustrated bluenose.

As for his/her link, the article has nothing to do with protecting children. That's just another smokescreen put up by the politicians to frighten the population. Like terrorism.

Tell me now, just HOW did they manage to convince us that taking a leak is equivalent to pedophilia?

Lady1
Sorry I missed your post. I'd be happy to respond to it. Yes, Vick's actions harmed a helpless animal. That is not why he should be punished though. As I have said before, I am no hippie. Animals have no rights as far as I'm concerned. He's imprisoned for reveling in the animal's suffering and death - for killing the animal for the sake of deriving a sick and perverted pleasure from watching it die. Although the same could be said about hunters, for hunters it is the sense of personal accomplishment of their marksmanship, not the thrill of seeing another being die, that they enjoy. That is why he is in prison while hunters continue to hunt -- because we recognize that Vick's actions promulgate bad character.

If you need to take a leak in the bushes because there isn't a john around, I don't think many people have a problem with that. It is the hedonistic, gluttonous exhibitionism that is objectionable from public nudity. The man was not arrested for merely trying to take a p*ss. (looks like Townhall screened the actual word out)

Lady2
Never mind the last bit about the first man. I see the part of the article. My apologies, I had mistakenly assumed you were talking about the first anecdote.

To continue, consent is in many instances, irrelevant. Consider one man who commits a crime, and another who consents to take whatever punishment is deserved for the crime in his place. Do we allow for this merely because they have consented? Of course not. Consent has no intrinsic bearing on such matters, and is relevant only in cases where rights are at stake and one person chooses to exercise or not exercise said rights.

As for how banning sex toys would forge good character or promote virtue, surely you are aware of (please don't mistake me as religious, I am an atheist) what is known by the Roman Catholics as the deadly sins of lust and gluttony, no? These detract from excellence because they are once again focused on treating another person (or in some cases, oneself) as merely a physical means to an end, thereby resulting in the degradation of one's own (or others') dignity.

Is that good? No. Should government act to stop it? Maybe. Depends upon how destructive a behavior we think it is, and how intrusive government becomes in harassing innocent people.

I've read several times and still...
got an impression that John Stossel...

Actually, what precisely Stossel defends? Public sex?

What made Stossel so much upset?

He can't legitimately shake his naked pen*s in public?
In front of the White House?
On the Red Square in Moscow?
Can't copulate in St. Patrick Cathedral?

Oh, I am soooo sorrrrry for you, poor John.
I could imagine how much sex-obsessed you are...

Masturbation can help.
But please not in front of me, OK?

But maybe you are simply a moron?

Mellor
Mellor, stop being an imbecile. If you read what I wrote, you would also know that I specifically said that social conservatives are often times not out to "protect children" but to promote virtue. The point in bringing up the prostiots was not child protection, but asking whether or not you live in a better society because this freedom exists. Protection refers to a physical shielding from harm. Here we are talking about creating the best society possible, realizing that to some extent it requires reform of the individual, and to some extent it requires that the government not be meddlesome, and what constitutes an appropriate balance.

Needing to take a leak is the one anecdote from this story I would agree with you guys on. There's an example of government going too far in curbing its freedoms, and not allowing for the needs of man to "meet nature's call" as it were.

Mellor
I missed the ":)". Sorry, sometimes I read too fast. HA HA. Yes, I have a sense of humor. I read 45caliber's post and I acknowledged it BTW (and yes, I am a lawyer and I understand the 4th Amendment yada yada, really I do), but I still didn't get any showing that as soon as someone says "bomb" regardless of context, they are picked up by Men in Black and taken away to a secret location. I guess for me it's not so much the listening it's what they are doing with the listening.

I don't feel like I'm really gullible, especially because no one has offered proof to me that the government is abusing the Patriot Act and taking away people who are otherwise innocent. There are many exceptions to the 4th Amendment (and many other rights enumerated in the Constitution). That's because the world is not black and white and cannot be run like it is. We have to deal with the reality that we have been given.

If there are sleeper cells in the U.S., then I think the gov't needs to do what they can to stop them from becoming active and hurting Americans. I see nothing wrong with that. Can you think of a better way to protect ourselves? Don't you think we should protect ourselves?

I will not see Rendition or any of those stupid liberal tripe movies. Was it based on something real? If so, how come it isn't ALL OVER THE NEWS?

I will acknowledge that mistakes can be made and that there is over-exuberance. Then policies should be in place to deal with them.

But remember, we do agree about Wendy and Stoic Patriot, who has yet to explain to me how banning sex toys "forges good character".

Mellor, Part 2
As to the link - well, I do have too daughters that are 4 and 5 1/2. I see what kind of clothes they put out for them; I've seen the Halloween costumes. I've seen the way the high school girls go to school (despite the dress code that applies from pre-school on up to 12th grade) - short shorts (like barely covering the behind). It's not a smokescreen; it is out there. But the best way to deal with it is be a parent that does not allow your child to dress like that. My mother would never have let me dress like that even if I wanted to and no amount of crying or complaining about peer pressure would have done her in.

Mind you, I am no prude by any means, but there is age-appropriate dressing and teaching our daughters to have respect for their bodies. I don't see anything wrong with that. That to me isn't bluenose. That's parenting.

On other things, however, I obviously disagree with Wendy and Stoic.

Cheers.

Georgia
"His version of events sound fishy. A man committing suicide because he was arrested for urinating in public and being fired for it? It is possible, but the more likely explanation is that Stossel is showing some dishonesty here."

I can't say his case but I can tell you about a case in Georgia. Cops closed a rest room at a boat ramp at a lake. Seems the rest room was being used as a place for sexual trists. A guy found the restroom locked (the idiot police had a sting set up) and he went out in the woods and relieved himself where the Dumb a cops arrested him. He was offered a deal to plead guilty, he refused. Judge threw it out and said it was a good thing he didn't because if he had it would have probably had to register as a sex offender.

Stupid cops--stupid district attorneys--stupid judges--and stupid people who support the stupid police, etc etc.


Lady
Consider it explained, in the preceding posts. Since I missed yours initially, perhaps you missed mine.

We may disagree on a whole bunch, but supporting the Patriot Act is another instance in which I think curbing freedom from monitoring makes sense and is hardly excessive.

SexPolice...............................
John it is great that you see the stupidity in the Democrats laws for all of us American's.
Entrapment law was first written to protect the public from charlitan practices of conning you into selling or doing some deed you would not do with cohersion.
Criminal Lawyers expanded on it to keep their crooked clients out of jail. Now the Democrats, using the laws as they enterprupt them, will seek to arrest, charge and persecute any or all that oppose there will.
Up until the twenties, if you committed a crime and did the time you where a free man, debt paid and given the right to start aknew. Since then you are a crook for ever. And they will not let you forget it, nor your friends.
So to this end they forbade you the right to ever atone a new life and marketed it towards the average citizenry as a means of keeping the criminals off our streets. Then let them loose again and the cycle begins.
But if you do become renewed in your ways, you pay for freedom with taxes but no rights.

It's more imagination than fact

I remember 20 or 30 years ago, there was a lot of fuss from people like a number of posters on HuffPro and TH, and the other billion places on the Internet, that the black helicopters were hovering everywhere, and that a dozen huge concentration camps were being built in various places in the USA.

At that time I was playing tennis most days of the week, and several of my tennis partners were airline pilots. One time, 3 or 4 of them sat down and compared the parts of the US that they had flown over in the past week or two. It was amazing that they had crossed the US from coast to coast and border to border many times, at all times of the day and night, and had landed in 30 some states.

They all agreed that not one sign of any black helicopter, and no “hidden” construction spots were seen. Think a moment, even if the “camp” was hidden, there would be signs of the trucks, planes, and railroads that had to deliver goods to that site.

Same with the nuts that say the Towers in NYC were built, filled with explosives. Even if that was possible, do you really think that not one of the 10s of thousands of people involved in construction like that, would not tell a soul?

Remember, the population of the US has grown rapidly in the past 50 years, but TV and radio news broadcasts have grown from 15 minutes a day, to a thousand hours a day at least, and they have all kinds of equipment to help fill those hours. So the number of news items per day have increased but slightly, when compared to the increase in news hours.

One day, while working on the computer, and listening to the TV a little, I heard street names that sounded familiar. I watched carefully, and sure enough the police car chase went down a familiar street, and TV helicopters, passed right over the swimming pool we had installed, next to the home where we lived 50 years ago.

That was not news, just a way to fill some time.



On curbing freedom
I'd also ask others to consider Townhall.com's censorship of my use of the word "p*ss" (with the "i" present). Do I heartily object to their censorship? No.

Is that because of property rights that I don't mind? Not really. Had the government mandated the filter, I still wouldn't be irate. I recognize that Townhall is in some way trying to encourage civil discourse and get me to communicate in a less crude fashion than I might ordinarily do in casual conversation. In so doing, they are promoting the virtue of being polite rather than crude and crass, and in so doing, are encouraging me to become a better person.

Sorry Stoic
I missed your post. Thanks for responding.

I still disagree though. There is no "maybe" about sex toys. What I do in my own home to relieve some frustration is none of the gov'ts business PERIOD. And I was raised Catholic (now an agnostic), so I know from what you speak but I still think that banning ALL of it instead of teaching ways to deal with it is the wrong way.

Certainly too much of a "good thing" is not good, but you teach people to deal with it, not ban it. That never works. Sex toys being banned is just stupid. I'm hard pressed to believe that masturbation is so destructive that sex toys need to be banned. And people don't need them to masturbate anyway, so how does that help?

Certainly you can't consent to a crime being committed upon you or consent to be punished if you haven't done the crime. But there is a such thing as consenting adults and if an adult consents to be in a porno then so be it. It's her problem not mine. It's her "soul" if you will. If consenting adults want to use sex toys during sex to enhance the pleasure, what business is it of mine? How does that hurt ME? It doesn't. No one is forced to buy the movies and they are sold online or in Adult stores where the kiddies can't see them.

I agree with you on the Prostitots, though, but that's for PARENTS to handle, not the government. Although I don't mind dress codes in school (public or private) since that is a place of learning, not a social club.

So we do agree a bit, but I agree more with Stossel. WHERE DOES THE INTERFERENCE END? Everything is "for our own good". Well who gets to decide what's good for each individual in this country.

Do you see the slippery slope?

flip flop?
Mellor, you would flip flop just to be on a different side than me? Really?

Surely not. I know you've got more backbone than that!

I've been good--but I'm better when I stay away from posting!

You still down under?

Yeah, Stoic and Constantine
STOIC: We missed each other. Check my last posts. :)

Constantine: you need some reading comprehension lessons as well. No, Stossel is not saying that we should be allowed to walk around naked in public or masturbate in public or have sex in public.

He was showing how stupid the law has been in enforcement - a man's gotta pee and in an emergency he does so in the park, making sure that no one is around (easy for a man to do anyway) and he's arrested! Come on! How does that sound okay?

Sex toys banned? Come on! What business is it of the government that people use such things? Where is the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST there?

Honestly!

Lady1
I'm beginning to see both some common ground, and some irreconcilable chasms. First, I do think that to some extent what you do in your own home to relieve frustration may be the government's business (e.g. domestic violence). However, I'll credit you as not being into that sort of stress relief. =P

In the case of sex toys, if a ban were to be instituted in a way that approached a modicum of sense, I would think it best to implement such bans at the retail distributor level. Otherwise, going into your home and becoming the "peeping Tom" does becomes rather silly when government resources could be better used elsewhere.

On pornography, I'd ban it from television networks, and access to it from public libraries. I note that with sex toys and pornography, your criteria seems to be how it harms yourself. Again, I would stress that I find the criteria of harm to be irrelevant from the standpoint of virtue (not the same as morality), and would again point to the case of Vick as an instance where I didn't care that the animal was harmed as I fully support hunting. That I think is one major unbridgable chasm.

not every stupid law is unconstitutional
Stossel, your logic is faulty if you want to claim these laws are unconstitutional because laws are different in other industrialized countries.

The real culprits here are the Family Research Council for pushing for such laws and the venal legislators who enact them. And public apathy for not protesting them forcefully.

Don't argue for restrictions on the people's will. Rather argue for better grass roots advocacy to change laws like this.

Lady2
As for prostitots, my position is identical to yours in so far as public schools are concerned. However, I'd also note that many towns and states have ordinances against indecent exposure, which has been used against the "ghetto" look of wearing one's pants partially below one's boxers. The ACLU has thought I'm supposed to object to that, but I don't. I happen to think similar ordinances can and should be passed in regards to how clothed or unclothed adults are in public, and you'll be relieved to hear that I'm no fan of burkas.

There is a potential for a slippery slope, admittedly, but with freedom there's also a potential for the slippery slope to operate the other way. The question is towards what extreme end do you think people are most likely to become abusive once a rationale for how people may live in a civil society is provided. Given what I observe in society, I tend to find an abuse of freedom rather than arbitrary governmental restriction of it more pervasive and probable, even though I do note the latter's existence and oppose it (again, I agree with you on the guy who needs to take a leak in public).

On Liberty
"I'd also ask others to consider Townhall.com's censorship of my use of the word "p*ss" (with the "i" present). Do I heartily object to their censorship? No."

Well you have no right of free speech here and if you wouldn't be irate if the government did it then you are a fool. Read J.S. Mill's Essay on Liberty sometime.


Stoic Patriot
"If you read what I wrote, you would also know that I specifically said that social conservatives are often times not out to "protect children" but to promote virtue."

You are right that I read your post too quickly and missed some of its more rational parts. Sorry.

But the issue is in the last part above: "but to promote virtue." The question is _whose_ virtue.

If you read many of the posters here, you will see that they believe they (and their god) has a monopoly on such virtue, and--despite their protestations--many of them, though not all, would like to impose such virtue through laws.

As for your (reasonable) point that there are limits to freedom, I can only agree. I disagree, however, that that limit is set by a majoritarian view of "virtue." No, the limits to my freedom are precisely the point at which my actions hurt you directly.

Just got back
It's probably too late to pick up the thread, but I'll give it a go anyway.

Rich Not wealthy:

Thanks, and I'm glad you enjoyed the story about creative sentencing.

Disasterbabe:

"Excuse me, how does physically attacking a minor compare with two consenting adults revealing their gender-specifics to each other?"

It doesn't. A lot of high-profile sex stings in recent years have targeted pedophiles, and as I said, I have no problem with nailing pedophiles as they try to grab victims. The third and fourth paragraphs of the column noted the gross distinction between that kind of legitimate law-enforcement activity and the absurd topless sting in Columbus, and I saw no need to comment further. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I ought to add, however, that there is something decidedly perverse not only about the guy who got stung, but also about the people who set up the operation. I'm no prude, but if a stranger -- even an attractive, topless one --surprised me in the woods and offered to play doctor, I'd decline. I can only speculate on the mental health of the cops involved.

Liberals and situational ethics
When writing computer software the client will say "I never will need that information". Upon further questioning they will say "well maybe sometimes". Computers do not make discretionary decisions.

The same applies when writing laws. When is nudity of some sort ok and when is it not.

Can someone walk up to your table at a family restaurant and masturbate in front of you and family? Can someone urinate on the floor in front of you and family at the Disney movie?

How do you write a law that is simple for a law enforcement officer to understand and enforce?

The easiest answer is to have a law that says you can never do this or that. When the community expects a law enforced that one cannot urinate in public parks when then is it ok to urinate in public parks?

Liberals especially use situation ethics to determine what is right and wrong. Writing laws using situational ethics is impossible.

If a community votes to make urinating in a public park illegal then law enforcement has to enforce that law.

A pedophile 'sting' is a different situation.

Law enforcement should have written the guy a ticket for 'public urination' or 'urinating' in a public park if that is illegal in that community - if not then the officer in charge of conducting the sting should have been reprimanded.

LadyK
"I will not see Rendition or any of those stupid liberal tripe movies. Was it based on something real? If so, how come it isn't ALL OVER THE NEWS?"

It _is_ all over the news. Don't you read it? Countries in Europe are refusing to provide sites or fly-over rights to rendition flights. You think they do this for a fantasy?

As for the movie, well, it's a movie. But it was fairly evenhanded and raised questions that need to be answered, such as "Is it right to kidnap US citizens and subject them to torture (in a foreign country so we can claim clean hands.)"

Wendy
"European children turn out just fine, says he (in fact, they are significantly more promiscuous than Americans)."

And you have any statistics to back that up? I thought not. Back of the line with you and Stoic.

Verby
" Mellor, you would flip flop just to be on a different side than me? Really?

Surely not. I know you've got more backbone than that!"

Indeed I do. Merely jesting

"I've been good--but I'm better when I stay away from posting!"

I shall refrain from comment :)

"You still down under?"

I forget when we last talked, but I suppose it must be at least 4 months. I went to the UK to bury my father, went to work in the US multiple times, straightened out what I could of their affairs, and brought my mother down under via BOS and LAX. Here for a few more weeks, then HKG, KIX, NRT, LHR and, for me only, (ugh!) MCO.

Akagi
Thank you for your excellent insights in #76. One poster above said that of course the cases sited by Stossell are foolish, but "he has no problem with pedophile stings." No problem. Prosecutors can just claim that the "sex offender" caught whizzing in the woods was "engaging in a pattern of behavior consistent with pre-pedophile offenses." The jury hears the word "pedophile," and starts chanting "lynch him! Castrate him!"

The Problem Is Big Government/Socialism
When Socialism takes a foothold, or I should say Stranglehold, on it's citizens, this is the sort of thing that you get. These types of Entrapment laws made their Debut With The War On Drugs. As if there were not enough Legitimate Drug Dealers and Useers to actually investigate, police, arrest, indict and prosecute, the DEA, their Local and State Counterparts, with state and local help went to great Extremes To Entrap People.

Instead of actually doing decent police work, these folks would go out and "Pretend to Be Drug Dealers" and solicit people to buy drugs from them, and then arrest them for agreeing. In the first place, it was the Police Who Broke The First Law, when they Claimed to Be Drug Dealers and Then Soliciting Customers.

It is dangerous when your Official Government Police stop actually policing criminals and go out and Make Easy Arrests with Entrapment such as was done and is still being done by police agencies at all levels of government.

There are plenty of Real Lawbreakers and Criminals who society needs to be protected from, without police being used to Solicit Crime and Creating Criminals.

These same tactics are always used by Dictatorial Socialist Governments. Many of our cities and states have long been Socialist, and the Police and Entrap regular citizens and tax them to death if they think the citizens are doing something that harm themselves. A good example are states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, etc. that put 3 to 5 dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes because the state does not want them to smoke. It all starts when the Government Decide that THEY Know What is Best For Us Mere Citizens, and They, The Government Wants to Police, Tax and Control Us For Our Own Good.