Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Any body know the why of public decency?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 11:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have been reading about the law about prohibition against indecent exposure and public decency staff and found that almost 100 percent of this article will focus only on the 'what' part of the law (such as what will constitute the offend or what is the exact nature of punishment). There is almost no article that discuss about the why of the law is there and what right do the government has to impose such law on society.

For me I found that the concept of public decency itself is quite confused and contradicted to many principle of law that we have today. For example if we assumed that the indecent exposure existed because such exposure is an offend to the public majority, then how can we explained religion freedom? If it is right to prohibit action that disgust the public majority then why it is not right for, let's say Islamic country to prohibit Christianity or Judaism in their country. On the other hand, if it is right to do so, then it is also right to prohibit, let say gay marriage in predominant Catholic nation as well. That's why I fee the law feel quite contradicting.

I don't actually want to campaign against this law, jut curios and want to hear your opinion. What do you think?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:14:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
most citizens want public decency laws to remain and there is no strong political movement that would cause politicians to booted from office for not opposing public decency laws.

Thus public decency laws exist/remain.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:49:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Puritans, and most people are ugly. (to answer your why question, from a root cause perspective)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:54:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:14:22 AM, darkkermit wrote:
most citizens want public decency laws to remain and there is no strong political movement that would cause politicians to booted from office for not opposing public decency laws.

Thus public decency laws exist/remain.

But there are a strong demand for the freedom of expression and believe, I don't think it is fair just because it is a disturber of the tranquility of the world that the world could tell you what to think and what to express.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 1:13:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:54:56 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:14:22 AM, darkkermit wrote:
most citizens want public decency laws to remain and there is no strong political movement that would cause politicians to booted from office for not opposing public decency laws.

Thus public decency laws exist/remain.

But there are a strong demand for the freedom of expression and believe, I don't think it is fair just because it is a disturber of the tranquility of the world that the world could tell you what to think and what to express.

We had this come up with a girl who had a double mastectomy who wanted to swim topless at a public pool because any bathing suit she could buy chafed her mastectomy scars.

I gave me the heebee beegees, but given that the pool was for everyone, she technically wasn't exposing anything that she wasn't supposed to, and that she had tried every other alternative 1st, I figure she had the right swim without a top on.

I think she lost her bid to get approved for it, though.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 3:43:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 11:56:36 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I have been reading about the law about prohibition against indecent exposure and public decency staff and found that almost 100 percent of this article will focus only on the 'what' part of the law (such as what will constitute the offend or what is the exact nature of punishment). There is almost no article that discuss about the why of the law is there and what right do the government has to impose such law on society.

One thing I never understood is why people view "the government" as some abstract entity that imposes its will on the people. That is not the case. The government is the people, or at least is as close as we can get. If you are not happy about the law (just as an example) then advocate to change it. If you don't get anywhere it is probably because people don't agree, in which case changing the law wouldn't be justified.

But more to your point I don't see any contradiction between not allowing nudity but allowing the free exercise of religion, assuming I understand you correctly. People take their religion seriously, no one takes seriously the right to walk around in their birthday suit (ok some do, but very few).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 3:46:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But there are a strong demand for the freedom of expression and believe, I don't think it is fair
It's not supposed to be fair, it's supposed to be paternalistic.

But more to your point I don't see any contradiction between not allowing nudity but allowing the free exercise of religion, assuming I understand you correctly. People take their religion seriously, no one takes seriously the right to walk around in their birthday suit (ok some do, but very few).
Religions are allowed even when they have very few adherents.

One thing I never understood is why people view "the government" as some abstract entity that imposes its will on the people. That is not the case. The government is the people, or at least is as close as we can get.
There's no such thing as THE people. SOME people oppress OTHER people.

If you don't get anywhere it is probably because people don't agree, in which case changing the law wouldn't be justified.
I suppose evolution literally isn't true in Tennnessee.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:13:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It think the clincher came at the end of your post: "I don't actually want to campaign against this law, jut curios and want to hear your opinion"

The reason nobody campaigns against this, despite it falling under the broader realm of freedom of expression, is that nobody wants to. It's embarrassing. Any politician who campaigned on this would at best be seen comically.

The law probably would become more lenient if people were willing to seriously consider the justifications for it.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:58:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 11:56:36 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I have been reading about the law about prohibition against indecent exposure and public decency staff and found that almost 100 percent of this article will focus only on the 'what' part of the law (such as what will constitute the offend or what is the exact nature of punishment). There is almost no article that discuss about the why of the law is there and what right do the government has to impose such law on society.

For me I found that the concept of public decency itself is quite confused and contradicted to many principle of law that we have today. For example if we assumed that the indecent exposure existed because such exposure is an offend to the public majority, then how can we explained religion freedom? If it is right to prohibit action that disgust the public majority then why it is not right for, let's say Islamic country to prohibit Christianity or Judaism in their country. On the other hand, if it is right to do so, then it is also right to prohibit, let say gay marriage in predominant Catholic nation as well. That's why I fee the law feel quite contradicting.

I don't actually want to campaign against this law, jut curios and want to hear your opinion. What do you think?

Perhaps you are thinking about this from the POV of a 23 year old. Indecently laws are about public indecency, and the public includes all people of all ages, including small children.

Decency is behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability, indecency laws are about drawing the line between what should be done behind closed doors and what should be a matter of public display. That's the difficult "what" question, where do you draw the line, but the "why" question is about whether or not you need to draw lines at all.

Do you really think there isn't anything that children shouldn't be exposed to?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:37:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you really think there isn't anything that children shouldn't be exposed to?
Children indeed should not be exposed to prudery, but I don't see why it's worth government intervention :)

(They have children in nudist colonies you know. Nothing bad happens).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:57:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:37:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do you really think there isn't anything that children shouldn't be exposed to?
Children indeed should not be exposed to prudery, but I don't see why it's worth government intervention :)

(They have children in nudist colonies you know. Nothing bad happens).

I already said it's a difficult matter of where you draw the line, but that's the "what" question, the "why" question is about whether we need to draw a line at all. There is more than nudity to be discussed, there are actions that nude people can engage in publicly too...you see no line to be drawn whatsoever? Anything goes?

I don't think that's the case in a nudist colony.

Do you really think drawing any line at all would be "prudery"? Are you saying people are prudish is they think there is anything at all that small chilldren should not be exposed to?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Humans are governed by instinct, and human nature is not rationally derived. What is "decent" is determined by the context of society, so it makes sense only if you know the social context. In Japan, parents commonly bathe with their children of either sex until the children approach their teens. However, parents would never kiss in front of their children because it isn't decent. In any society, behavior not in accordance with norms is an act of defiance; it is anti-social by definition. People who know the norms defy them purposefully to either draw attention to themselves or to make some point.

San Francisco permitted public nudity until recently. Naked gay men congregated around City Hall, replete with clever penis ornaments. It's reasonable to assume that they were signaling sexual availability. As a result, many citizens would not go to City Hall, and they kept children away, despite San Francisco being the most liberal city in the U.S. The City Council changed the law, now permitting nudity only for special events.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:54:56 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:14:22 AM, darkkermit wrote:
most citizens want public decency laws to remain and there is no strong political movement that would cause politicians to booted from office for not opposing public decency laws.

Thus public decency laws exist/remain.

But there are a strong demand for the freedom of expression and believe,

Not enough for nudity laws to pass.

I don't think it is fair just because it is a disturber of the tranquility of the world that the world could tell you what to think and what to express.

Its not what you think is "fair" that matters. Its the system of government itself that is run. Laws do not pass for serving ideals of philosophy or some "greater good" or theory of justice like that. They are passed by mere self-interested humans that have their own interest in mind.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Err, i think we are carried a way somehow. I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, sorry guy.

The thing is that I found the principle behind public decency things pretty tricky. If public decency is what the majority (public) feel good about, and disallowing what the dislike is justifiable. Then in principle, at least, it is justified for the government to impose censorship, repress ethnic/religion/opposition whatever they like, assume that they hold majority vote. On the other hand, if everybody have the right to express anything regardless of whether they are majority or not (assume that it does not cause damage to property of any other), then even having sex in the public can't be disallowed. Because majority vote hold nothing against individual right of expression.

In either case, it doesn't sound very good that is why I say it sounds contradicting and which if anybody have any better idea to justify it.

Hope that help clarified my statement earlier.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:27:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:19:25 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Err, i think we are carried a way somehow. I guess I didn't make my point clear enough, sorry guy.

The thing is that I found the principle behind public decency things pretty tricky. If public decency is what the majority (public) feel good about, and disallowing what the dislike is justifiable. Then in principle, at least, it is justified for the government to impose censorship, repress ethnic/religion/opposition whatever they like, assume that they hold majority vote. On the other hand, if everybody have the right to express anything regardless of whether they are majority or not (assume that it does not cause damage to property of any other), then even having sex in the public can't be disallowed. Because majority vote hold nothing against individual right of expression.

In either case, it doesn't sound very good that is why I say it sounds contradicting and which if anybody have any better idea to justify it.

Hope that help clarified my statement earlier.

If your referencing the 1st amendment, and freedom of expression, there's pretty well-established limitations to it that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor vs. against. How do they decide what's considered constitutional or unconstitutional depends on the people doing the judging. They are just people as well using their subjective preferences as well. There's nothing objective about it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:19:25 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
The thing is that I found the principle behind public decency things pretty tricky. If public decency is what the majority (public) feel good about, and disallowing what the dislike is justifiable. Then in principle, at least, it is justified for the government to impose censorship, repress ethnic/religion/opposition whatever they like, assume that they hold majority vote. ...

It's only a contradiction if you refuse to allow context to be a consideration. Censorship involving public displays is quite different from censorship what people do in private. There are some borderline cases, but the law generally reflects that difference.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 1:00:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:57:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:37:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do you really think there isn't anything that children shouldn't be exposed to?
Children indeed should not be exposed to prudery, but I don't see why it's worth government intervention :)

(They have children in nudist colonies you know. Nothing bad happens).

I already said it's a difficult matter of where you draw the line
It's easy, don't expose children to prudery.

but that's the "what" question, the "why" question is about whether we need to draw a line at all. There is more than nudity to be discussed, there are actions that nude people can engage in publicly too...you see no line to be drawn whatsoever? Anything goes?
Are they doing it TO the children without permission?
There is nothing I am prepared to ban merely SHOWING children, other than a threat of force, which I'd ban showing adults too.


I don't think that's the case in a nudist colony.
You don't think what's the case?


Do you really think drawing any line at all would be "prudery"? Are you saying people are prudish is they think there is anything at all that small chilldren should not be exposed to?
No, like I said, small children should not be exposed to prudery. This is not a prudish belief. :)
There is nothing particular to nudity or sexuality that small children should not be exposed to.

Censorship involving public displays is quite different from censorship what people do in private.
The entire point of the first amendment was to prevent censorship of things said in public (the thought of censoring something said in one's own home would be too silly to occur to the founders, in an era before electronic surveillance).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 2:10:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are no logical grounds to support public indecency laws.

If you question is why they exist, it has to do with human subjectivism and baseless moralizing of the human form, and hoisting it onto the public through the law. If your question is, what is the logical or moral justification for thus, there is none.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 2:51:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 2:10:55 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
There are no logical grounds to support public indecency laws.

If you question is why they exist, it has to do with human subjectivism and baseless moralizing of the human form, and hoisting it onto the public through the law. If your question is, what is the logical or moral justification for thus, there is none.

I don't wanna see grandma's banana t!ts hangin' down next to her knees, nor gramps shriveled up wing-ding next to his undescended testis.

The only thing illogical about that is that you do.

The only
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:20:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 2:51:35 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/9/2013 2:10:55 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
There are no logical grounds to support public indecency laws.

If you question is why they exist, it has to do with human subjectivism and baseless moralizing of the human form, and hoisting it onto the public through the law. If your question is, what is the logical or moral justification for thus, there is none.

I don't wanna see grandma's banana t!ts hangin' down next to her knees, nor gramps shriveled up wing-ding next to his undescended testis.
I don't wanna see her face either, but that isn't illegal.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:06:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 1:00:49 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:57:17 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:37:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do you really think there isn't anything that children shouldn't be exposed to?
Children indeed should not be exposed to prudery, but I don't see why it's worth government intervention :)

(They have children in nudist colonies you know. Nothing bad happens).

I already said it's a difficult matter of where you draw the line
It's easy, don't expose children to prudery.

Oh, how clever.

but that's the "what" question, the "why" question is about whether we need to draw a line at all. There is more than nudity to be discussed, there are actions that nude people can engage in publicly too...you see no line to be drawn whatsoever? Anything goes?
Are they doing it TO the children without permission?
There is nothing I am prepared to ban merely SHOWING children, other than a threat of force, which I'd ban showing adults too.

Good for you, but the fact is you are in a miniscule minority. and as far as laws and standards of morality goes, the majority rules.

I don't think that's the case in a nudist colony.
You don't think what's the case?

That "anything goes" in front of children in nudist colonies.

Do you really think drawing any line at all would be "prudery"? Are you saying people are prudish is they think there is anything at all that small chilldren should not be exposed to?
No, like I said, small children should not be exposed to prudery. This is not a prudish belief. :)

OMG, clever x 2, you're really good at this.

There is nothing particular to nudity or sexuality that small children should not be exposed to.

Perhaps ypu just lack imagination.

Censorship involving public displays is quite different from censorship what people do in private.
The entire point of the first amendment was to prevent censorship of things said in public (the thought of censoring something said in one's own home would be too silly to occur to the founders, in an era before electronic surveillance).

Yes, and it's clear the founders were concernd with the expression of ideas, and there are limits set on that freedom, particularly around the feedom of speach that harm's others. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you can't incite violence and hate crimes (That one bankrupted the KKK), and you can't do things in public that will frighten children or cause them to need therapy the rest of their lives.

As others have pointed out, it just isn't that big a deal to most people, certainly not big enough to get the laws changed. I'm not sure what indecent thing you want to do and why you feel the need to do it in front of small children, I just think that's weird, and it's probably illegal...so keep it zipped, so to speak.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:18:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and Happy New Year.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:07:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 11:56:36 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I have been reading about the law about prohibition against indecent exposure and public decency staff and found that almost 100 percent of this article will focus only on the 'what' part of the law (such as what will constitute the offend or what is the exact nature of punishment). There is almost no article that discuss about the why of the law is there and what right do the government has to impose such law on society.

For me I found that the concept of public decency itself is quite confused and contradicted to many principle of law that we have today. For example if we assumed that the indecent exposure existed because such exposure is an offend to the public majority, then how can we explained religion freedom? If it is right to prohibit action that disgust the public majority then why it is not right for, let's say Islamic country to prohibit Christianity or Judaism in their country. On the other hand, if it is right to do so, then it is also right to prohibit, let say gay marriage in predominant Catholic nation as well. That's why I fee the law feel quite contradicting.

I don't actually want to campaign against this law, jut curios and want to hear your opinion. What do you think?

Well, the Constitution is open to interpretation, but it does not directly mention indecent exposure, so unless you interpret some constitutional right to align with indecent exposure, it's irrelevant since we are a constitutional republic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 3:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:06:04 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Good for you, but the fact is you are in a miniscule minority. and as far as laws and standards of morality goes, the majority rules.
Breaking news: The Nazis were moral, at least for their actions in Germany.

There is nothing particular to nudity or sexuality that small children should not be exposed to.

Perhaps ypu just lack imagination.
How so?

Yes, and it's clear the founders were concernd with the expression of ideas, and there are limits set on that freedom, particularly around the feedom of speach that harm's others. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you can't incite violence and hate crimes (That one bankrupted the KKK)
I thought the KKK got in trouble with the IRS, and replaced with subnational organizations. In any case, why didn't the founders specify this? You're citing 20th century precedents for an 18th century amendment.

and you can't do things in public that will frighten children or cause them to need therapy the rest of their lives.
Like exposing them to prudery? Controlling them, treating them as subhuman creatures, unworthy of their own consciousness?
Never heard of anyone going to therapy for catching their parents f***ing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 11:52:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:07:46 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Anything the constitution does not mention is open to interpretation, creation and modification by the people.

I see, but in that case can I assume that the constitution (as well as your belief) is going for absolute majority rule?

Remember the second clash in this question I pose is whether minority belief ever hold any significant meaning against majority vote. For example if I worship some sort of ancient Egyptian belief that required me to perform masturbation in front of the public. Do the majority have the right to forbade me of my religion practice (assume that it cause zero harm to public or private interest except for its disgusting nature) ?

What do you think?