Comments are hereby closed.

If a person isn’t actually harming someone do they really deserve the lable “creeper.”

“I don’t like what may be playing out in that guy’s head, and if he ever made even the slightest gesture that indicated harm to a child or anyone else, I’d be the first person to punch him in the windpipe (figuratively speaking).”

You do know this response is exactly what statists intend to elicit when they exploit protect-the-weak proxy lawfare? Right?

And how do you figuratively punch a creeper in the windpipe?

As it is today, the only two options are to be forced to tolerate creepers, or to move further down the road to a police state. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has made some very compelling points in this area.

We’re almost there, just working out the details.

I agree that the principle here is ridiculous, but the way you present it suggests there was an actual danger that this offensive law might actually be enacted, when in fact it wasn’t.

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.

Does the original law specifically prohibits arrest for “visual sexual aggression” or does it just not make a crime out of something so friggin’ stupid?

So, this guy, apparently doing nothing but watching people in a public place, was able to avoid justice and live to watch people in a public place again in the future? I mean, he’s out there walking around scott free?

Hell, he could have been actually taking pictures of fully clothed children entering the restroom. Now that’s frightening. Next thing you know, some pervert somewhere, is secretly jerking off to them. Once that happens, the kid will be brain damaged for life.

This seems to fit right in with that bill in Florida about not photographing farms. I mean, next thing you know, some guy somewhere will be jerking off to pictures of farm animals. Farm animals deserve to be safe, too.

Sarcasm aside, there is now so much child sex paranoia in this country that the focus of these laws no longer has anything to do with protecting children, but is now all about whether someone somewhere is getting a thrill. The laws are attempting to criminalize fantasies. There is a difference between child molestation and taking a picture of a kid in a public place and there is a difference between a kid seeing someone naked and actually being abused.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, turns otherwise intelligent people (including libertarians) into mindless police state advocates quite like the child predator fear mongering that has become so common in the last few decades. It’s the most potent tool politicians have and they know it. And you can be sure that when the internet is finally under total state control (assuming you think it isn’t already), the protection of children will be the excuse they will use. Most developed western countries are already traveling that road.

I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being profoundly conflicted over this. The guy may or may not have been an actual threat to anyone, but he clearly had a problem with impulse control and (likely) a thing for kids. On the other hand, he got popped for breaking a law I have been known to break myself with some frequency (though not as stupidly and publicly) and don’t think should be a crime at all.

Anyway, my point in that rambling story being that if you’re up to much of anything, the cops can find a reason to arrest you, or at least scare you off. So I don’t really see a need to invent a new crime.

Hill pledged to do what she could

There’s the problem right there. Politicians can’t resist doing something…anything.

BTW, we already have the laws against “irritating a cop”.

Looks like there’s indeed a law on the books, but based on its content I think Rep. Hill wanted to beef it up:
http://www.legislature.maine.gov/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec256.html

As it is, I don’t have too much of a problem with it (you can’t expose yourself to a kid and you can’t peep at them when they’re naked and they have a reasonable expectation of privacy–e.g. bathroom stall, changing room, etc.). But the proposal indeed would be unconstitutionally vague in my opinion, and just a horrible idea in general.

I don’t know what happened with the bill, but I think we’d have heard more about it by now if it had passed.