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?
In public sexual acts, no one should be implicitly harmed, yet such behavior should be restricted. This situation falls under the category of offenses against others. While anyone could engage in any sexual act they desired in public, laws have been established to prevent potential offense to others. Bystanders may have children with them, and those parents likely do not want their children to witness such acts, especially since kids tend to stare. Again, these acts do not inflict harm on anyone; however, they could easily be performed in private or simply kept to oneself, which makes it inappropriate. Even though it may be viewed negatively, it should not be illegal, as it is a natural behavior. If people engage in sex in public and are caught, onlookers might react with disapproval, questioning, "How could you do that here?" Still, if people have intercourse in public but no one sees them, it's essentially the same act. Sex in public is equivalent everywhere except in a private room. Also, it is only breaking the law if you get caught with such an issue, meaning that public indecency laws should not be a thing. It's the same as saying, “If men can walk around shirtless so can women.” It's not public indecency unless someone really believes it should be. Public indecency laws actually serve social norms rather than actual harm. The idea of public indecency would be meaningless if society were able to normalize the behavior. As long as no one is hurt directly, people should be allowed to act in ways that are typical of human nature without worrying about the repercussions of their actions.
ReplyDeleteActs of public indecency-like what a couple was arrested for while waiting in line for the Fearground Freak Show at Cedar Point-should be illegal even though they do not truly harm anyone. While John Stuart Mill’s harm principle says that anyone should be free to do what they desire as long as they do not harm anyone in the process, the principle fails to account for what Joel Feinberg calls, the “Offense to Others” crimes. These “offenses” do not truly harm anyone, at least not physically, though they can be somewhat traumatic. The actions that fall under Feinberg’s offense to others principle he famously explained in his “Ride on the Bus” analogy: you are stuck on a bus with people doing a wide variety of morally questionable acts and can not leave until you get to your destination. You are forced to be around these people. Feinberg’s offenses include: 1. An act that is affront to the senses - a passenger with an intolerable stench or using a radio at maximum volume. 2. An act that is particularly disgusting - vomit, coprophagia. 3. An act that is religiously shocking - a passenger wearing a T-shirt that mocks Jesus. 4. An act that is shameful or embarrassing - a couple having sex on the bus. 5. An act that causes slight annoyance - two passengers participating in a boring conversation that you have no choice but to listen to. 6. An act that could be threatening - the passenger seated next to you wearing an armband with a swastika on it. Feinberg argues many of these acts are so offensive that they should be illegal, hence his “offense to others” principle. One act that he argues should definitely be illegal, which is widely agreed upon, is #4, acts of public indecency. A couple should not be able to have sex on this bus as it is highly offensive to the other passengers. It is also not reasonable to think that the other passengers can just avert their eyes, or that it is their choice to stay on the bus, because it is a public space and they need to reach their destination. Nor is it reasonable to have sex in public anyway when you can just do it in private. Therefore, the couple that were engaged in a sexual activity in line at Cedar Point were rightfully arrested.
ReplyDeleteA public display of sexual activity is an issue regarding the offense it has on others, while it may not cause any physical harm, guidelines and regulations are most indefinitely called for when discussing the Fairground Freakshow incident. John Stuart Mill describes explicit public displays of affection as an act of liberty and shall not need any adjustments only in the case that said actions aren’t harming anyone, yet this principle falls short of the offense it causes to others better explained by Joel Feinberg. His opinion on the “Offense to Others” crimes includes similar acts in his passage “Ride on the Bus” which involves the same case as the Fairground Freakshow dilemma. The perspective is set to be first person as you aren’t able to exit the bus and are therefore forced to watch some incredibly disgusting and horrific acts, similar to not being able to exit a long line at Cedar Point. The imagery that Feinberg uses is graphic yet also necessary to understand why engaging in public acts of sexual activity can cause harm to children or innocent bystanders which is a massive proportion of the people who were most likely waiting for the Fairground Freakshow at the time of the event. As Feinberg states, public acts of indecency may not cause any form of physical harm or pose any threat but may have detrimental effects on someone's mind by possibly triggering trauma or inflicting it on a much younger audience. His point gains credibility when he states that “offense is surely a less serious thing than harm. That comparative value judgment seems to me self-evident” (Feinberg 3). Joel Feinberg is stating that offense is subjective but can cause as much harm as harm itself. Now, should acts of sexual activity be made illegal, no, but they need to be crystal clear as to what locations are acceptable, like foresay in your own home or a private place where nobody is forced to exist around your indecency. With this in mind, the arrests made at Cedar Point were completely justified and had no business being conducted in a public space where a younger audience would be in attendance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough not directly causing harm to others, acts of public indecency, such as the inappropriate actions committed by a couple in line at Cedar Point in 2022, should be considered a crime. In his Offense to Others, author Joel Feinberg explains that committing unavoidable and disgusting acts should be seen as punishable offenses. He debates John Stuart Mill’s argument of strictly penalizing physical harm, claiming that harm done to the mentality or purity of an individual should also be illegal. His famous “Ride on the Bus” scenario depicts a multitude of events from sex acts to gross smells and sights which occur on one’s bus ride to work. He claims that because of the duration, intensity, unavoidability, and extent of the actions, people who commit them should be arrested despite not physically hurting anyone. Feinberg’s philosophy can be applied to the incident on September 30, 2022, where a couple waiting in line for the “Freak Show” at Cedar Point was recorded by a minor doing sexual acts. Since they were in a public place and it was unavoidable for bystanders to witness their actions, the couple is guilty in the eyes of the offence principal. By partaking in private activity amongst an environment meant for many people, the couple most likely repelled and offended witnesses of the scene. Given that a multitude of people unwillingly witnessed the sexual actions of the couple at Cedar Point in 2022, their actions can be considered public indecency and align with Joel Feinberg’s justification for penalizing people under his offence principal.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI believe acts such as the freak show can cause harm to people in that it can create addictions or other visual harm. When I say addictions, I mean exposing people, especially children, to things that they shouldn’t see or hear because it could cause mental adicitions. There's a reason why things such as adult stores and pornography are being banned or restricted to more mature people and not just open to anyone because there is a risk for young people to watch or engage in these act,s which can cause them to desire more of it which can not only cause physical harm but also mental harm. It is the same logic why we shouldn’t expose children to smoking because the curiosity of children could lead them to want to engage in such actions, which can cause harm. Also, after some research, being exposed to public indecency that later leads to addiction for watching or engaging in those actions can lead to a decline in brain activity and overall production. I also believe that these acts can cause harm the same way flashing someone can cause harm in that no one wants to see someone’s body parts, unless you’re some sort of freak. I mean if flashing will cause harm to others why can’t public indecent exposure do the same?
Such actions should be illegal because the harm you cause to others significantly outweighs the benefit the actors seem to gain. These actions are tied to the “offense to others” in that it can make others feel unsafe or have an impact on their wellbeing. This is why acts such as flashing are illegal in many parts of the U.S because the harm of being publicly exposed can cause mental harm to people.
Despite the fact that the couple did not physically harm anyone, the act should still be illegal on the grounds of public decency because it is seriously offensive, there is no easy means of avoidance that goes beyond what could be deemed as reasonable, the people who are bearing witness to such events did not consent either through their words or their actions to see it (despite being in line for the FREAK show), and those committing the act could just as easily conduct the action somewhere in private so as not to disturb the greater public. The contrarian to this argument would most likely lean solely on the harm principle presented by John Stuart Mills in his critically acclaimed book, On Liberty. In his book, Mills says that the only time a government or state shall exercise the right of prohibition is upon such actions that directly cause physical and undeniable harm to another. Any other action must go unpunished, for any "non-harmful" action that is prohibited is done so unjustly by those who legislate based off personal whims and beliefs that are unfair to force upon another. Mills and his supporters claim that such prohibition is a greater evil than whatever the state was trying to outlaw originally. While this argument may sound quite compelling, one of the key flaws with such thinking is that it lacks a true practical impact. Take the outlawing of Nazi paraphernalia as a case study. When Germany outlawed any Nazi symbolism, we did not observe any sort of great collapse of freedom of other speech or expression. The only real measurable change was a decrease in Nazi symbolism. Mills' supporters would balk at such a claim and refute it by claiming that the prohibition of such symbolism is itself an afront. Again, my response would be that such horrific symbols have no personal or social value beyond the attempt to incite fear and wickedness into society. Truly, the only impact Mills can attempt to access is the slippery slope argument where suddenly the prohibition of one action elevates arguments to ban other symbols or expressions. Mills' supporters would further that such reckless prohibitions without any rhyme or reason beyond the opinions of those who legislate is the quickest way to tyrannical, draconian governance. On this point, I agree. I believe that any prohibition without some sort of weighing mechanism to evaluate the severity of an action that does not cause physical harm against another is a dangerous game that threatens to core of society. Thankfully, there is such a mechanism that I subscribe to coined by Feinberg as the "Offense to Others Principle." As a means of building off Mills' harm principle, Feinberg created essentially an amendment which serves to add potential bans on actions that do not cause direct harm but rather impose offensive thoughts, beliefs, smells, etc. against another. To flesh out his argument, Feinberg presents the world's worst bus ride hypotheticals where passengers are affronted by their peers who do a myriad of non-harmful, but intensely offensive and inconsiderate actions. For example, coprophagia, vomit eating, bestiality, and public sex acts such as sodomy are conducted in the same box car as another passenger. Even though no person faces direct harm from these actions, Feinberg believes that such actions are so offensive that they deserve to be outlawed.
ReplyDelete. To weigh the right of the actor vs. the offended, Feinberg determined the practical method for evaluating what is meant to be a violation of the offense to others principle is to weigh the seriousness of the offense vs. the reasonableness of the offender’s conduct. These categories must be weighed via multiple subcategories. To demonstrate, let us return to the matter at hand of the Cedar Point couple yet another case study. For the argument against the couple's actions, the first thing that must be weighed is the severity of their offense. This category is broken into three subcategories of intensity, duration, and extent. The Cedar point couple's sex acts were highly considered offense and practiced during their entire period waiting in the Cedar Point line, clearly checking off the points of intensity and duration. An important note is that not all the categories, such as extent as a sub-category, need to be met for a person to rule against the couple. The next subcategory for the seriousness of the offense is whether the actions taken by those offended incited or invited their witness to such events (i.e. going to a drag show and getting offended by drag). However, in this case, waiting in line for an attraction at Cedar Point is by no means an invitation to view sexual acts. Third, the ability of those in line does not conveniently avoid coming into contact or interacting with the action. An exasperated Mills supporter, viewing the scoreboard, may argue that anyone offended may look away. This may be true; however, it fails to account for the sheer displeasure proximity to such an action may possess. It is also unreasonable to ask someone who does not want to stand next to lewd sex acts for what could be hours to have to lose their place in line. If that were the case, many may commit them just to cut in front of those who could no longer bear the discomfort of it and forfeit their place. Lastly for the seriousness of the offense, there is the issue of ensuring not to overregulate based on one's delicate sensibilities. However, Feinberg and I agree that such public sex acts are viewed in contempt or at least discomfort across cultures to say that its offense is broad enough to not overregulate. Now onto the reasonableness of the offender, it is an important reminder that the prohibition of this does not need to meet all criteria to prove that the action is unreasonable. In fact, only one sub-category is necessary here, alternatives. Feinberg argues that there is a non-offensive alternative that allows the actors to conduct the same action, then that is strong evidence that the action is unreasonable. For instance, the Cedar Point couple easily could have done this in a hotel room where no one would have batted an eye, proving that performing it in a densely crowded public area was unnecessary. Thus, Feinberg's principle of offense to others would indicate that their actions should be illegal and, therefore, upholds the merit of their arrest. And if Feinberg's principle, of which I am obviously a supporter of, prohibits it, then so do I.
ReplyDeleteThe act of engaging in a sexual act in public should be allowed because of its seriousness and reasonability. While John Mill would argue that it should be completely legal for two people to conduct sexual acts while in public, however, most people would be greatly offended by this idea. This is where Joel Feinberg comes in. He believes that, “to be forced to suffer an offense, be it an affront to the senses, disgust, shock, shame, annoyance, or humiliation, is an unpleasant offense, and hence an evil, even when it is by no means harmful.” (49). While this could be controversial because one might very easily be offended by any such behavior of anything anywhere, however, Feinberg goes into great detail to define what a reasonable offense is. To be considered a reasonable offense, Feinberg weighs two different qualities of the action against each other. He weighs an action's seriousness with its reasonability. An action’s seriousness is essentially the reasoning for why it might be bad. It accounts for the action’s duration, number of people affected, intensity, ability to avoid to which all must be calibrated to the senses of an average person. He then weighs this against the action’s reasonability, which consists of its social and personal value, location, and awareness that the action in question is offensive. Taking these into consideration, the couple’s act was incredibly offensive because it was done in the middle of a highly crowded theme park, where many people were forced to be near them as they had been in a long line for an attraction, and knew that the people around them would not enjoy witnessing the act.
ReplyDeletePublic indecency—in this case, the incident involving the couple arrested while waiting in line for the Fearground Freak Show at Cedar Point—should be illegal, even if it does not cause direct physical harm. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle states that individuals should be free to act as they wish, provided they do not harm others. However, this principle fails to account for “Offense to Others.” These actions, according to Feinberg, although not physically harmful, can be deeply unsettling or distressing to those who witness them. By this logic, outlawing these actions would be reasonable for the sake of the greater good. Feinberg illustrates the idea of offense to others with his “Ride on the Bus” analogy, in which passengers are confined in a space with individuals engaging in offensive behaviors. Since they cannot leave, they are forced to endure uncomfortable acts. One example he provides is a couple engaging in public sex, which would be highly embarrassing and inappropriate for those around them. Feinberg argues that many of these behaviors are offensive enough to justify legal prohibition, particularly public indecency. A couple engaging in sexual activity in a public setting, such as on a bus or in a theme park line, places others in an uncomfortable situation where they cannot simply look away. Public spaces are shared by everyone, and individuals have a right not to be subjected to such behavior. Since engaging in these acts in private is always an option, public indecency laws are reasonable. Therefore, the couple at Cedar Point who engaged in sexual activity in line was justifiably arrested.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the 2022 cedar point couple I believe that they did in fact harm others by publicly displaying sexual acts. In this case you have what I would call emotional harm which can happen in many different ways. I believe that if things like hate speech can be considered crimes and it is just based on emotional harm that an act like this should most definitely be considered a crime. In Joel Weinbergs offense to others he argues that unavoidable offensive acts should be punishable which challenges John Stuart Mill's belief that only actions that actually cause physical harm should be punishable. Feinberg says that harm to an individual's mental well being can be harmful and also if someone's sense of purity is harmed it also should be penalized against. His scenario titled “ride on the bus” illustrates many intrusive acts on display that range from public sex acts to horrible smells and sights that the individuals on the bus have to experience. Overall, I feel that especially in today's era when mental health is such a big deal that these acts should be punishable. I could also relate this to A soldier who has come back from war. Many times when members of the military retire they suffer from PTSD because of what they have seen during the time they served and this can lead to many health issues. These issues range from being put on medication to unfortunately drug addiction.
ReplyDeleteWhile people having sex in public does not do any harm necessarily, it should still be illegal as it does cause offense. John Stuart Mills’ argument would be that there is no harm being done to other people therefore it’s justified, but Joel Feinberg brings in this offense to others principle that this would fall under. In his bus example, he discusses many different categories of offenses such as offended by an “affront to the senses,” “Shock to moral, religious, or patriotic sensibilities,” or the one this case falls under, “Shame, embarrassment (including vicarious embarrassment), and anxiety.” In order to determine whether or not the act of public indecency or any act for that matter, he has three rules to consider. He claims that acts of offense should be judged by “its personal importance to the actors themselves and its social value generally,” “the availability of alternative times and places,” and “the extent, if any, to which the offense is caused by spiteful motives.” While the importance to the people who committed the public indecent act may be high, it’s social value is very little. Nothing important is gained towards society in this act. Also, the second one plays a big role in this as there were multiple other times and places where this couple could have had sex. If they went home and had sex later in a private place, that would be fine and no offense would have been done, but they chose to do it in public at an incredibly busy amusement park nonetheless therefore causing way more offense. We don’t know if this was done in a spiteful or malicious manner, but either way, under the “Offense to Others” principle, this should be considered illegal as there are alternative times and places and it does more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteThough public indecency is different from harm to society, it is still considered disruption. Joel Feinberg argues that “Offense to other parties, when it occurs, is usually a consequence of perpetration of the offenses in public, and can be prevented by statutes against ‘open lewdness,’ or ‘solicitation’ in public places.” Even though it’s not directly harmful to citizens, it is widely rejected by society who tends to find public fornication disrespectful. Additionally, the act itself may have negative side effects. The individuals involved in the act may end up dealing with medical issues that could have been avoided, had the couple done their business somewhere more sanitary. Also, it can greatly affect the viewers as well: if the passerby is a child, for example, this may lead to conversations and inquiries about a topic their parents may deem them unready for. This could lead to future trauma from sexual experiences or the opposite, a voyeurism addiction. Similarly, recovering sex addicts may get triggered by these events and relapse for example. However, all in all, this act is seen as disgusting towards the majority of American communities, and there should be regulations around discomfort as well as harm. The couple could easily participate in sexual activities in private, away from random people that they might affect. That way, they can participate in a natural activity without creating situations where multiple people may feel violated. For something as simple as this, I believe that it is good to have regulations and rules surrounding this situation.
ReplyDeletePublic sexual acts should be restricted, because while they cause no explicit harm to others, they can be offensive to others. Public sexual acts are generally condemned because of their offensive nature. Many people claim that they take offense to such acts, and that they are things that should only be done in private between two people and not shown to others publicly. Committing sexual acts in public is an offensive act that can cause harm to other people. John Stuart Mill would not agree with restricting behaviors of people based off of offense caused to others, as his beliefs are strongly focused on causing serious harm to another person being restricted. While this is an important principle, offense to others is also a serious case. Witnessing sexual acts in public can cause mental distress, invoking feelings of disgust and anger in most people. If most people agree that sexual acts are something that should not be public, and they do not want to witness them while out doing other things, they should be considered harmful to others mentally. More importantly in this scenario is the issue of the incident taking place in Cedar Point, in line for a ride. This is not only a very crowded public space, but also an area in which there are many children present. Children are young and have impressionable minds, meaning that seeing sexual acts at all could be harmful to them. It is important to keep children safe in our community and also to prevent unneeded offense to others.
ReplyDelete