On September 30, 2022 a couple were arrested at Cedar Point for charges of "public indecency" for engaging in a sexual act in public as they were waiting to enter a haunted house, the Fairground Freakshow. A 17-year girl waiting in line capture the incident on video.
Do such sexual acts cause harm to anyone? If not, should such actions be illegal?
Sexual acts do cause harm to people and should be treated as such. The act of performing sexual acts in a public space, especially in front of minors, should be considered a crime due to the psychological trauma that can come from the action. Just like physical assault is illegal, the idea that it is impossible to be psychologically traumatized by seeing someone else commit sexual acts, in my opinion, is wrong. Whether or not you think this opinion is correct is inconsequential as no matter what you think the act should be illegal. This is due to many factors, but the largest is that it is in public. The fact the action is taking place in public changes how laws should be enforced. For example, drinking is perfectly acceptable when done privately, but drinking in public is illegal. Sexual acts are the same. They are perfectly fine when done privately and consensually, but once the act is taken into the public, it changes the action. Since there are bystanders, the two people involved are no longer the only ones affected. These acts can be illegalized based on harm to others but can also be made illegal due to how offensive it is as it checks the three criteria of being offensive enough to be criminalized: first, bystanders would have no way to agree to see the act; second, it would be hard to escape it; and third, it is entirely unbeneficial for the couple involved as they could easily wait until they got home. Due to these points, it would be foolish to say these actions should be legal even if one believed they were not harmful to others.
ReplyDeletePublic sexual acts most definitely cause harm to individuals, but especially to minors that may come across the acts even though the individuals involved are completely to blame. This should and is illegal for many reasons. The main reason, obviously, is that the acts are being done in a public setting. Public settings, such as Cedar Point, pools, and more, are places where tons of people, me included, go to relax, hang out with friends, and have fun. It is also a norm for everyone that these places are safe to be in. These public sexual acts completely contradict this norm and common reasons to be present at these places for both kids and adults. These acts should and have to be done privately and only between the people involved. Where it crosses the line is when individuals who do not wish to see these things, see these things unwillingly and unexpectedly in public. Kids are far too young to see these things in public. For example, in 2022, a couple engaged in these acts at Cedar Point and were charged with serious offenses. A minor recorded their behaviors on video. If these acts are able to be videotaped by the public, then it is evident that something illegal and wrong is being done, that is disgusting. Similarly, Mill was big on the idea relating to harm to others, so because bystanders are present who most likely do not want to see these acts in a public setting, or anywhere, Mill would say that these acts are disruptive to the world and should be illegal. Also, the fact that minors, not only adults, can be affected by these acts would also help ease Mill’s decision on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis example of public indecency should be criminalized because of its offensive but not harmful nature under the offense-to-others principle. In “Offensive Nuisances,” Joel Feinberg outlines that some actions are not directly harmful to people, but are so offensive that they should be criminalized, though not as severely as directly harmful actions. This proves that a liberal state has some ability to coerce people beyond only preventing harm, as Mill originally claimed in “On Liberty.” In this specific instance, a couple engaging in a public sexual act does not directly harm other people. However, it can be reasonably expected to provoke reactions of disgust from bystanders, especially the minor who was also in the line. Thus, the action should be considered offensive, although not harmful, and the consequences should be determined based on the criteria Feinberg provides in “Mediating the Offense Principle.” To determine the seriousness of the offense, he provides three main criteria: the intensity of the offensive act, the ability of observers to avoid it, and whether observers have willingly assumed a risk of offense. In this example, the magnitude is high, since the average person would probably be disgusted if they saw this act taking place. Observers also can not easily avoid it without a significant opportunity cost since they would miss the haunted house they presumably paid for. They have also not willingly assumed the risk of being offended; while they might expect to see some offensive content in the haunted house itself, they did not consent to seeing sexual acts in the line outside. On the other hand, the seriousness of the offense must be weighed against the reasonability of the offender, which is determined by three factors: the act’s personal importance and social utility, the availability of alternate locations, and the offender's motive. For many people, the ability to have consensual sex is important to their free expression. However, there are many alternate locations to do this that are specifically for adults where everyone consents to being there. There is no motive given here, so that criteria can’t be considered. Ultimately, under this weighing criteria, bystanders' negative reactions and inability to avoid the offensive act outweighs the feelings of the couple and their freedom to perform this action, so they should face legal consequences.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this act should not be as severely punished as sexual assault or other crimes that physically harm people, and the offensiveness of this example should not be used as a slippery slope to outlaw all forms of public nudity that might be less offensive, such when it is in permitted areas or done as an act of protest. While this example is more clear-cut, the offense principle should be carefully used in each individual case because offensive actions are less severe than harmful ones, and so they require more cautious justification for limiting people’s liberty.