Man arrested for being naked in his own house

[bascule]

But where exactly does it say in the constitution that you're allowed to walk around the house naked and stand in windows and what not?

 

I think you're missing the point of the Constitution there guy. It's a free country. Anything which isn't explicitly against the law we're allowed to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

I like walking around the house naked. That's freedom

[Syntho-sis]

A better question might be "Why is it wrong?" Isn't it just a matter of (your) social convention that a naked body is something to be ashamed of? In a more balanced society, there wouldn't even by an eyebrow raised by nudity, nevermind the implication of raising something else implied by making nudity a taboo.

 

Perhaps, but in a hypocrisy laden world such as our own, there exists many who would just as soon send a man to prison for a pettier crime.

 

I suppose that there should be definite limits to what a child is exposed to, regardless. Illegal Drugs is an example.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think you're missing the point of the Constitution there guy. It's a free country. Anything which isn't explicitly against the law we're allowed to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

 

I like walking around the house naked. That's freedom

 

Seems hypocritical to me.

 

It would be illegal to muse about nude in the public domain, but in your house it is perfectly fine, even if other people see (Without consenting to it)?

 

Yet it is illegal to invite your neighbor over for a spot of tea, ask him about his life, then proceed to to beat the living crap out of him with an umbrella (Even on your property for which you own.) This would be illegal in both instances.

 

I fail to see the logic, because, it isn't there.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Syntho-sis
Consecutive posts merged.

[Fuzzwood]

Why should a child be protected from a glimpse of genitalia? Dont get me wrong. I still oppose any kind of pedophilia here, but you make it sound like when a child glimpses someones genitalia, they should be shot on sight, thereby forgetting the fact that they will learn all about those once they reach puberty.

[iNow]

This is all just retarded. The guy could have been jerking off and cumming on the window... It's his right to do so. The woman has equal right to turn around and not watch. Case closed. Didn't we kill the Puritans in the 1800s or something?

 

As an aside: These are the types of stories we've come to expect from Fox News... Just enough information to get everyone pissed off, but not enough detail to have a well-informed opinion. Keepin' it classy, Fox News.

[insane_alien]

...thereby forgetting the fact that they will learn all about those once they reach puberty.

 

if parents aren't teaching their kids about basic human anatomy and function until puberty then perhaps it is them who should be shot.

 

i've known what a penis and vagina is since... well i can't remember ever not knowing the distinction(although i did know them by other names).

 

to synthosis, if people are peeking in your windows then it is them that is at fault if the catch a glimpse of your dangly bits as they should be respecting your privacy. also, i don't see how exposure to genetalia and grevious bodily harm with an umbrella are equivalent.

[ydoaPs]

if parents aren't teaching their kids about basic human anatomy and function until puberty then perhaps it is them who should be shot.

 

i've known what a penis and vagina is since... well i can't remember ever not knowing the distinction(although i did know them by other names).

 

to synthosis, if people are peeking in your windows then it is them that is at fault if the catch a glimpse of your dangly bits as they should be respecting your privacy. also, i don't see how exposure to genetalia and grevious bodily harm with an umbrella are equivalent.

 

*cough*

Genesis 9:20-28

*cough*

[insane_alien]

millenia old fictional writings don't have relevancy here.

[Fuzzwood]

The entire forced clothes business was to protect gay priests from that era

[Syntho-sis]

This is all just retarded. The guy could have been jerking off and cumming on the window... It's his right to do so. The woman has equal right to turn around and not watch. Case closed. Didn't we kill the Puritans in the 1800s or something?

 

As an aside: These are the types of stories we've come to expect from Fox News... Just enough information to get everyone pissed off, but not enough detail to have a well-informed opinion. Keepin' it classy, Fox News.

 

Dang, what's with the hostility?

[padren]

Absolutely no case? Come on, what good are lawyers then? I can think of at least 4 reasons she could sue this man in a court of law, legally.

 

That does not necessitate her pressing charges against him, the police may not care. But if he did in fact, make a habit of exposing himself to the bus-stop (or other people from his property), even unintentionally, there is a very legitimate case against him and charges could in fact, be pressed.

 

Did you miss the part where I explicitly stated that if he was viewed from his own private property then there would be no case, and went on to say if he was accidentally viewed from a public place it would be considered negligence?

[Syntho-sis]

if parents aren't teaching their kids about basic human anatomy and function until puberty then perhaps it is them who should be shot.

 

i've known what a penis and vagina is since... well i can't remember ever not knowing the distinction(although i did know them by other names).

 

to synthosis, if people are peeking in your windows then it is them that is at fault if the catch a glimpse of your dangly bits as they should be respecting your privacy. also, i don't see how exposure to genetalia and grevious bodily harm with an umbrella are equivalent.

 

They aren't equivalent, I was making a point about U.S. law.

 

Gah I hate having to explain the same thing 5 billion times, btw, my original statements were perfectly coherent.

[insane_alien]

you obviously weren't coherent as i was notthe only one to reach the conclusion i did.

 

if nobody understands what you mean, perhaps it is because YOU are not communicating well.

[Syntho-sis]

Did you miss the part where I explicitly stated that if he was viewed from his own private property then there would be no case, and went on to say if he was accidentally viewed from a public place it would be considered negligence?

 

What if he wasn't viewed from his private property? What if it was across the street by other people in their homes?

 

Where does privacy end and public indecency begin?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

you obviously weren't coherent as i was notthe only one to reach the conclusion i did.

 

if nobody understands what you mean, perhaps it is because YOU are not communicating well.

 

Well that's a fallacious assumption for one, and secondly I can't even understand your sentences half the time. Ever heard of capitalization and spacing?

[Fuzzwood]

It starts with the closemindedness and jealousy of other ppl. And so what if he was seen? It wasnt as if he was shoving his wang into that women's face.

[Severian]

*cough*

Genesis 9:20-28

*cough*

 

Not sure what you are getting at here. Noah was passed out drunk and naked, but he isn't rebuked in any way.

[Syntho-sis]

It starts with the closemindedness and jealousy of other ppl. And so what if he was seen? It wasnt as if he was shoving his wang into that women's face.

 

So the latter action would have been bad, but the former is entirely okay and pleasant even?

 

Uhm, I'm pretty sure she wasn't jealous of this guy, close-minded, perhaps, but jealous no.

 

That didn't answer my question whatsoever.

[Fuzzwood]

No but she wasnt supposed to be on HIS OWN PROPERTY in the first place. Not saying it is pleasant, but you dont HAVE to look at it, it isnt like he was forcing her. Somehow i have the feeling you have an emotional problem with this yourself.

[Syntho-sis]

Let me add this.

 

Where does privacy end, and public indecency begin according to U.S. law?

 

And- Should the man be punished in any form for his actions?

 

That's what the controversy over the stupid news articles in the first was, wasn't it?

[Fuzzwood]

What actions??? Its his own freaking house! Its like being sued for not wearing clothes while showering.

[ydoaPs]

Not sure what you are getting at here. Noah was passed out drunk and naked, but he isn't rebuked in any way.

 

Did I say he was? His son was, however. And he cursed his grandson.

[Syntho-sis]

No but she wasnt supposed to be on HIS OWN PROPERTY in the first place. Not saying it is pleasant, but you dont HAVE to look at it, it isnt like he was forcing her. Somehow i have the feeling you have an emotional problem with this yourself.

 

Thanks for the ad hominem, and no I don't have any emotional problems.

 

I'm just trying to understand the actual argument, but apparently I'm not allowed to do that.

 

I wanted to understand it from the opposite viewpoint, because it seems everyone on here has already chosen sides without actually understanding what's going on.

 

Last I checked, I'm allowed to be skeptical of this man's intentions and the portrayed situation. I'm also entitled to my own opinion.

 

If you have a problem with that, you are entitled to go take a hike.

[Fuzzwood]

Ok then define this opposite viewpoint for me.

[Syntho-sis]

What actions??? Its his own freaking house! Its like being sued for not wearing clothes while showering.

 

Him making coffee, obviously.

 

What do you think I'm talking about?

 

Perhaps, I should have used the word "state."

 

The state he was in, now, is that better?

[bascule]

It would be illegal to muse about nude in the public domain

 

Depends where you live.

 

but in your house it is perfectly fine, even if other people see (Without consenting to it)?

 

If they're trespassing, I have absolutely no sympathy.

[Syntho-sis]

Ok then define this opposite viewpoint for me.

 

First answer my questions.