The Latest In Proposed Thought Crimes
Stupid "hate crimes" laws are giving birth to stupid kin. Ever sat on a park bench and watched kids play on a playground? You could soon go to jail for it in Maine. Dave Choate, on the Maine newspaper site Seacostonline.com, writes that "those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon:
A bill that passed the House last month aims to strengthen the crime of visual sexual aggression against children, according to state Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York....Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.
"There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with," Alexander said.
...Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.
Pedophilia is evil, but this is just plain idiotic. And dangerously wrong.
And sure, this law is meant to catch sex offenders, but it could be used against anybody, even you, as you sit, absentmindedly watching kids play while thinking on a park bench.
thanks, lujlip
UPDATE: Dr. Helen posts that "it looks like the story isn't true":
At least, that's what Travis Kennedy, Communications Director for Maine Rep. Dawn Hill just told me on the phone. Despite what the news story reported, Kennedy says that the bill never punished mere staring or leering -- the defendant has to be touching or exposing himself, or doing something like looking over a bathroom stall wall. And he said that the burden of proof remains on the state for all elements -- there's no crime just because someone is staring or looking at you.He says that the bill in question just made a minor change in the pre-existing law to make clear that this could be in a private or a public place. He also said that Rep. Hill has been getting a lot of complaints over this, and is upset that the story is false. So there you are -- things aren't quite as insane out there as we'd feared.
Here, from Dr. Helen's comments section, is the text from the bill:
"This amendment replaces the bill. The amendment removes the requirement that visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person occur in a private place to be a crime. Instead, the amendment specifies that a person who, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person is guilty of visual sexual aggression regardless of where the surveillance occurs. Surveillance may occur either in a public or private place."
I agree with one of her commenters, averagejoesgym. An excerpt from his comment:
Shannon Love said "It looks like the news reports are keying off the phrase "visual aggression" when this looks to be your standard peeping-tom type legislation updated to include public places."I think that is wrong. The standard of viewing in public places, even if it ony concerns exposed buttocks, breasts, genitals, etc... is ripe for corruption and abuse. What if a teenage girl is flashing or changing? What about mothers changing diapers? What about just flat out false accusations? This is a horrible, horrible law and that Communications Director is spinning like Eli Whitney.
VISUAL sexual agression? So "mentally stripping good-looking person" is now a crime, unless it is invited and welcomed? Or would it still be a crime even if invited and welcomed, if your fantasy got a little rough? (Or is this thought-crime currently only addressing looking at children?)
So, if I'm sitting in a coffee shop, thinking "what the HECK is that mother thinking, allowing her child to misbehave so loudly in a public place", I have to be careful not to actually LOOK at said child, lest it be perceived as "visual sexual agression" rather than mere "visual aggression"?
TheOtherOne at April 21, 2008 8:14 AM
FWIW, Rep. Hill is now denying that this was the intent of the law. Dr. Helen has an update from a spokesperson saying that the bill authored by Rep. Hill only intends to expand existing indecent-exposure statutes to cover both public and private places. I read the actual bill and it's still problematic, but at least it doesn't ban looking at people in public.
Cousin Dave at April 21, 2008 8:22 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/the-latest-in-p.html#comment-1541534">comment from Cousin DaveI'm on deadline, and didn't go read the bill itself. Can you pull the problematic language and post a quote?
Even if the intent of the law isn't to prosecute people who aren't pedophiles, could it be used that way?
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 8:33 AM
Posted an update above from Dr. Helen's site. Feel free to post further supporting material affirming or disputing.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 8:46 AM
This type of law is clearly targeted at men and their oh-so-dangerous sexuality. Better safe than sorry ... .
Soon we will be able to read men's thoughts. Then we can really get down to the business of protecting society from those bastards!
Jay R at April 21, 2008 9:10 AM
Jay R, are you serious? Are you gay, or just a misogynist?
Flynne at April 21, 2008 10:24 AM
I think its actually intended to be targetted at people sneaking looks at body parts that someone is trying to keep private. The issues of abuse of the law and overreaction in enforcement are still there, though. To understand your frame of reference though Jay, do you believe its OK to peer through the window of a lady's restroom? And is it OK for me to peer through the window of the men's room?
moreta at April 21, 2008 10:25 AM
Jay is a conspiracy theorist, just like the feminists who believe everything but the fluctuations in the price of tuna is a patriarchal plot.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 10:41 AM
Ok read the update and if I understand correctly they are saying it is currently not a crime to watch a child change or go to the bathroom in public facilites?
How is that possible?
lujlp at April 21, 2008 10:57 AM
I want to echo moreta.
There was a court case recently regarding keeping your body parts private. A woman was (I think) in Target. She was wearing a skirt. A guy somehow managed to use his camera/camera phone to snap a picture up the skirt. She calls the cops. I'll try to find a link to the story. I don't know what kind of charges were brought up against him.
Anyway, the judge decides that the woman had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Her panty-clad vagina was IN PUBLIC therefore she didn't have say over who got to take a peek. Just chew on that for a bit.
...done chewing? Now spit it out before you get sick.
Gretchen at April 21, 2008 11:25 AM
Done, Gretchen, and I think I'm going to be sick. When you're (generally speaking) out in public, you're wearing clothes. Usually. Which means you are covering bits that you don't wish to display. Which means that if some asshole decides he has the right to take a picture of my panty-clad vagina, he just can?? Um, NO. N-O. I'm dressed, clad, wearing clothes. If I want to show someone my bits, I will take that someone to my room, and let them see. My choice, not his! That judge is an asshole.
Flynne at April 21, 2008 12:07 PM
"..feminists who believe everything but the fluctuations in the price of tuna is a patriarchal plot"
Nothing like a good old feminist/tuna reference to kick off the week!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 21, 2008 12:36 PM
"Anyway, the judge decides that the woman had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Her panty-clad vagina was IN PUBLIC therefore she didn't have say over who got to take a peek"
I could see this, maybe, if there was no panties. Or if they cannot get out of a car correctly, a la B. Spears. But to just say wearing a skirt in public isn't enough to stop people from snapping keepsake photos, is ridiculous.
MeganNJ at April 21, 2008 1:14 PM
It is usually the case with these 'new blue' laws, that you hear some crazy shit about the specifics of it so you asked the crazy politician WTF? In more cases than not, they will LIE LIKE HELL to you and say, "Oh no, we would never pass a law like that! That's not what the law says at all!" Then you do a little more research and you find out that is exactly what the intention of the law is. They will parse the phrasing withing the bill many times to hide the intention but the wording of any law has to be looked at as if the Supreme Court were reading it. Right now, in California, they are trying to pass a law against spanking your child. I saw a lady from the California Assembly challenged on it on the tube, (I forget who was interveiwing her about it), but she was downplaying the whole thing and said the proposed law only would include hitting a child with an object like a paddle or a belt. She was lying through her goddamn teeth! The fact is the law makes swatting a chile under three years old on the behind a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail or a $1000 fine.
I am against any law that presumes to read your mind and punish you for what it finds there. I don't care if some pervert is sitting there like Chester Molester staring at little children. As long as he stays on the park bench, that's not a crime and shouldn't be.
Bikerken at April 21, 2008 1:23 PM
I apologize for the sloppy writing lately, I can't find my reading glasses!
Bikerken at April 21, 2008 1:25 PM
OK, I'll play Devil's Advocate on the Target Panty Photographer - partly because I enjoy arguing with Flynne and Gretchen (good-naturedly, that is), but mostly because it allows me to write about panties.
"A guy somehow managed to use his camera/camera phone to snap a picture up the skirt."
The "somehow" here is the crux of the case and should not be overlooked. If the woman was wearing a high-maintenance skirt and bent over, climbed the stairs, or otherwise spread her legs indiscriminately, then I don't think she has a cause of action if a guy snapped a photo of what appeared in plain sight. If, on the other hand, the defendant was utilizing Homeland Security technology-equipped spy satellites or some other contraption to sneak an otherwise obscured view, her case gets a lot stronger.
This reminds me of those old comic book ads for x-ray specs. Those were the stuff of 8 year old fantasies.
snakeman99 at April 21, 2008 1:35 PM
Gog -- glad to see my brain wasn't the only one who went looking for some relationship between tuna and feminists. But I couldn't come up with such a subtle comment...mine were all far too vulgar for such a refined audience as this.
moreta at April 21, 2008 1:37 PM
"She was wearing a skirt. A guy somehow managed to use his camera/camera phone to snap a picture up the skirt."
Pretty sick. I guess those same judges would have no problem with this guy peeping into public restrooms, or taking a flying dive under a girls skirt (since that's what he did with his camera) to get a look.
Good think that loophole got closed quickly.
Jamie at April 21, 2008 2:28 PM
Do black patent leather shoes really reflect up? I think it's a reasonable assumption of privacy for a woman wearing a skirt to assume that nobody is taking secret pictures up her skirt. For some reason, Kilts are a bit safer.
You could be sitting in a McDonald's and have some wierdo taking pictures under the table. I think that should be illegal. I seriously don't know what thrill these bozos get out of this. You could see more in an underwear catalog, but then, some people are just weird.
Bikerken at April 21, 2008 2:49 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/the-latest-in-p.html#comment-1541632">comment from BikerkenLadies: If you're going to the Apple Computer store, wear underwear. (Glass staircase.)
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 2:52 PM
I see this sort of thing is a crisis now. Gee, nobody ever did this before... You are all looking at what happens when a majority of people expect to be protected - from anything which might be offensive - by "someone else", generally a government agency. The principle of equal protection under the law goes away, sabotaged by the rule of unintended consequences.
I feel badly about beautiful women having to dress down to appear in public, but if you do not want to be a spectacle, you just have to to do that.
And of course, eroticism is not a product of clothing, or the lack of it. The funniest, most awkward thing I've ever seen done in public was an otherwise fine redhead in a string bikini climbing over a 3'6" chain-link fence at a racetrack. Awesome became clumsy, stupid and flabby in short order, as she desperately tried to avoid being cut by the twisted wires on top. She was successful, but it took no small amount of time to get her dignity back!
Radwaste at April 21, 2008 2:54 PM
"Ladies: If you're going to the Apple Computer store, wear underwear. (Glass staircase.)"
What do I have to do now to ride an escalator? Wear a blindfold?
Radwaste at April 21, 2008 2:57 PM
I remember when I was growing up there was a public scare about weirdos at the public libraries with mirrors on their shoes. It really was a big deal- my sister couldn't wear skirts to the library!
This week on our local news there was a segment about, I swear to God, how not to be misinterpreted as seeking illicit sex in airport bathrooms. (Larry Craig is one of our Senators.)
To quote Kurt Vonnegutt, "It's all gotten so fucking stupid."
eric at April 21, 2008 4:21 PM
Jamie wrote: "I guess those same judges would have no problem with this guy peeping into public restrooms, or taking a flying dive under a girls skirt (since that's what he did with his camera) to get a look."
Exactly the opposite. The whole point of the case was that the statute specifically required that the victim be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy." Keep in mind that this was a CRIMINAL charge, not a civil one. I don't know about you, but attaching prison time to an innovative judicial interpretation worries me a lot more than a peeping tom.
The statute defined such a place as "any private dwelling house, apartment building, any other place of residence, or in the vicinity of any locker room, dressing room, restroom or any other place where a person has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy." Based on that definition, the Court refused to broaden the scope of the statute's plain language, leaving that job to the legislature.
And guess what? As Jamie's link noted, that's exactly what the state assembly did. Isn't it awesome when democracy and federalism work?
snakeman99 at April 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Amy,Am I guilty for having leered at your picture on your home page?Sorry but you are rather pretty,just my 2c
Bob
P.S. please don't report me LOL!
BobNormal at April 21, 2008 10:18 PM
Aww, gee, thanks!
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 11:43 PM
The physics is being ignored. Light is reflected from the object (panties, perhaps) in all directions and may end up in my eyes. But the law is described as if the act of seeing emanated from the eyes. I should be able to sue you for contaminating my eyes with the image of your panties, just like I can sue if you spray water all over the place and soak me.
If you don't want anyone to see something, don't reflect light all over the place. Wear a burka.
Norman at April 22, 2008 12:00 AM
Thanks for the link, Jamie.
Snakeman - I can't argue with you, though I appreciate your attempts to get me going. You examined how the word "somehow" played a role in the issue. I don't know exactly how he obtained the picture though I suspect she didn't have her goods in plain view. Your arguments were totally fair.
This case forced legislature to fix the language in the bill, which is good. Maybe that was the judge's desire? But for the judge to even rule in the way s/he did in the first place bugs me.
My crotch, under the cover of panties and clothing, is private. I feel I have a reasonable expectation to keep my naughty bits private from perverted strangers whether I'm on the sidewalk (public), my office (private-public), or home (private).
Glad this worked out, though.
Gretchen at April 22, 2008 6:21 AM
Is the law specific that the private parts need to be covered up? Or are we still going to see paparazzi shots of Britney getting out of limo's? Enquiring minds wants to know...
moreta at April 22, 2008 8:46 AM
Gretchen I feel I must point out that while you do have an expectation of not having your bits photoed by we perverted strangers, you did yeild mental access with your public comments about having a threesome with Six and Starbuck
lujlp at April 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Amy,
A "conspiracy theorist" am I? What conspiracy is that, now?
On the gender front, I want only equality:
-- Responsibilities for women commensurate with their existing rights, and
-- Rights for men commensurate with their existing responsibilities.
How from this Flynne is able to divine that I'm gay or a misogynist is truly a wonderful psychic gift. Her ability for articulated rebuttal -- not so much, apparently ... .
Jay R at April 22, 2008 12:53 PM
Do I HAVE to use ad hominem name-calling here (such as "gay" "misogynist" "conspiracy theorist") to make a point? I'd really rather not, since I prefer articulated thought. But, if it's mandatory ... .
Jay R at April 22, 2008 1:00 PM
"you did yeild mental access with your public comments about having a threesome with Six and Starbuck" - lujlp
But can you BLAME ME?? I'd be happy just to have my ass whooped by them.
What is Saul going to do when he hallucinates Ellen when Six is around him?!?! I CAN'T WAIT FOR FRIDAY!!
This whole BSG at 10 pm on Friday nights is cutting into my going-out time. But it's worth it to sit and watch the show whilst sipping wine from my "FRAK" coffee mug.
Gretchen at April 23, 2008 7:12 AM
Soon we will be able to read men's thoughts. Then we can really get down to the business of protecting society from those bastards!
Jay R, if this was sarcasm, you forgot the /sarcasm tag. That one statement was the only reason I questioned your, er, orientation.
Sorry if I offended you.
Flynne at April 23, 2008 8:17 AM
Hey Gretchen think its possible Ellen might have been a Six herself?
Had alot of the same personality traits
lujlp at April 23, 2008 12:52 PM
That's what my friend and I were thinking, lujlp. A 6 gone AWOL?
We want Ellen to walk right in and say "I'm back, baby, thanks for killing me. Now let's have some hot cylon sex."
Who's a dork?
I am.
Gretchen at April 23, 2008 1:11 PM
Flynne,
The best sarcasm is that which leaves things ambiguous, don't you think? More thought provoking that way.
No offense taken. I'm a big boy, and don't bruise easily. ;)
Jay R at April 23, 2008 2:06 PM
You know one possibility I see for the end Gretchen. I see them reaching earth only to discover that they themselves are machines as well.
They laid the ground work last week when they reconfigured the centurions to become self aware
lujlp at April 23, 2008 3:37 PM
"Kennedy says that the bill never punished mere staring or leering -- the defendant has to be touching or exposing himself, or doing something like looking over a bathroom stall wall."
And he's almost certainly lying. The language of the law doesn't appear to demand that the "offender" be doing anything but looking "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire,". Unless the bill is very different from what is described it's as bad as claimed.
Michael Price at April 24, 2008 11:34 PM
Leave a comment