Quote:
Originally posted by lordjeebus
But who is to decide a society's standard of "public decency?" Everyone has their own level of what they find repulsive and it would be difficult to define a society's level of consensus. Plus by allowing for restriction on public speech on the basis of "public decency" you give government an easy way to justify censorship of political discourse by labeling your beliefs "hateful.
|
I think the community should decide, as a whole, what is offensive to them.
Start asking people what is and what is not offensive to them. Most people in a given community are offended by similar things even while they disagree on the questionable things.
In this case, the cop wasn't being a prude and certainly wasn't setting some dangerous precedent. Images of naked women sliding down poles while men ogle them isn't something people want in their public sphere. They haven't wanted it for the past two hundred years. We don't let minors view the images on this site, which values the imagry of naked women in all forms. We don't allow it in our mass media.
If people want to see it, they know where they can go, no one's stopping them. If it's art, take it to a museum or exhibit where people can decide to go in. Why this belief that certain rights necessitate offending the community one lives in? It seems to me that an ounce of common sense should be in order--the rights we have were created for a particular end, they aren't ends in themeselves. People should stop thinking of their rights as ends in themselves and contemplate why some behavior is protected, otherwise the point of the right is weakened.
FYI, misdemeanors don't net prison time, so we can stop debating that point.