Is this a bit over the top?

Fiona · #1 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 11:49 AM

Following on from some of the discussion about pornography etc:

Fair officials vow to crack down on streakers

I saw this and I wondered how to make sense of this bit:

Quote:

, any public nudity will bring a charge of misdemeanor child endangerment, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

I think that there is an argument of some sort against pornography being available where children might see it: but I cannot honestly see that streaking is pornographic. It does not seem to me to be designed to make people horny, more to make them laugh. Maybe it is just me, but child endangerment?

Damuna_Nova · #2 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 11:54 AM

It amuses me how often America proves it is far from being a free country, while it still claims to be one.

Fiona · #3 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 11:55 AM

Not sure this kind of thing is confined to America, really. I see a lot of this "doing it by numbers" in the UK as well.

dragon wench · #4 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

"We just think it's time to take control of the event again and say this really is intended to be a family event," he said.

Apparently nudity isn't a "family value."

Bah... I've already stated my thoughts on this kind of stuff. My view on those who make statements like the above, "Get over it already people, it's the human body, no big deal."

Fiona · #5 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Opposition to the streaking has grown since last year's derby, he said, when a deputy used a Taser to apprehend a 21-year-old, dropping him to the dirt as he streaked with a fire extinguisher before a crowd of 3,500.

Child endangerment?

Denethorn · #6 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 12:42 PM

In principle they may have a point, but as you say its a bit over the top to say the least.

Fines of that level, threats of jailtime etc. are excessive. A night in the booze tank is more appropriate.

TonyMontana1638 · #7 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 12:46 PM

Damn Janet Jackson's nipple, this is all her fault.

Darzog · #8 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 01:37 PM

I may be wrong, but most places that link nudity with child endangerment are doing so based, not on streakers but on flashers which is usually deemed a sexual assault on someone (someone walking up to a woman/child and flashing them because they get off on it). In those cases the laws are usually vague enough that streaking can be considered the same offense. I doubt that they are making up a new law, they are just using an existing law to respond to complaints that have been made.

Fiona · #9 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darzog

I may be wrong, but most places that link nudity with child endangerment are doing so based, not on streakers but on flashers which is usually deemed a sexual assault on someone (someone walking up to a woman/child and flashing them because they get off on it). In those cases the laws are usually vague enough that streaking can be considered the same offense. I doubt that they are making up a new law, they are just using an existing law to respond to complaints that have been made.

I am sure you are right but that is what I mean by "doing it by numbers". Flashing is very scary indeed, and steeaking is funny. There is some overlap ( I saw a very funny flasher in Amsterdam, though he was on a bike so he might qualify as a streaker) But I cannot see any reason for widening the application of the law in this way. It brings it into disrepute really, I think

JonIrenicus · #10 (**permalink**) 08-04-2006, 03:29 PM

With all the American "sex and violence" they have on tv you would think they would be ok with streakers. I swear those conservatives need to lighten up and get their head out of their... money.

Fiona why must you post things that make me so angry