Does Private Property Equal a Right to Private Displays?

[Heather]

Let’s say you’re walking down a friendly looking neighborhood, and you look into the window of a house as you pass by, and you find your eyes are met with a sexual display you were not expecting.

Is this indecent exposure?

Or does the property owner have the right to do whatever they so choose within the confines of their own home, even if they do so with the drapes wide open? Should the passerby have not looked into the window of their neighbor, and by looking into the window of someone’s private residence, should one except to see any number of things, and not complain?

[ladyphoenix]

Trying to think of how to relate this.

I'm a photographer. The laws I must be aware of are this: If I photograph someone, and I intend to use their likeness commercially, I must have them sign a model release, with this exception... anything that is viewable from a public place is public domain. If I am standing on a sidewalk and I can see in your house, I can take that picture and sell it and I owe you nothing, and you have no recourse.

I would think that if there were decency laws, and someone's living room was easily viewable from a public place, like a sidewalk, those laws would apply.

***EDIT***

I would also like to add that there are search and seizure laws regarding "open and obvious" and I bet that those would also apply in this situation, to some degree.

[5010]

Quote by: Heather Or does the property owner have the right to do whatever they so choose within the confines of their own home, even if they do so with the drapes wide open? Should the passerby have not looked into the window of their neighbor, and by looking into the window of someone’s private residence, should one except to see any number of things, and not complain?

I can understand your scenario and adult-to-adult it's no big deal.

However, would it be OK if people could legally live next to an elementary school and engage in hardcore sexual activity in a well-lit room behind a bay window while the children were playing outside or on their way to/from school? Obviously not!

So, where do you draw the line?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Heather Let’s say you’re walking down a friendly looking neighborhood, and you look into the window of a house as you pass by, and you find your eyes are met with a sexual display you were not expecting. Does the property owner have the right to do whatever they so choose within the confines of their own home, even if they do so with the drapes wide open?

Let’s say you’re walking down a friendly looking neighborhood, and you look into the window of a house as you pass by, and you find your eyes are met with someone firing a gun at you.

Does the property owner have the right to do whatever they so choose within the confines of their own home, even if they do so with the drapes wide open?



IE, obviously just because someone is doing something on private property doesn't mean they're immune to public law.



The question then becomes how can we possibly make an objective definition for what is "offensive"?

[Heather]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 IE, obviously just because someone is doing something on private property doesn't mean they're immune to public law.

Sorry, I don't understand this argument. Based on this, you are saying that even if those drapes where drawn, the property owner is still subject to public law. Which we all know not to be the case.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Heather Based on this, you are saying that even if those drapes where drawn, the property owner is still subject to public law.

No, because the photons wouldn't be leaving the property.


Or, using the gun analogy, the bullets wouldn't be firing at you.

[ladyphoenix]

Uh, yeah. Murder is just as illegal whether committed in full view of witnesses or done privately in one's own home, away from prying eyes. In that respect, yes, we are absolutely subject to laws when within our own homes.

Does this mean that if sodomy is illegal in my community, that if I break that law, the police are going to come knocking my door down? No. As I said before, there are certain things that are required for such things. One of them is "open and obvious." If I was committing such an act in front of my open bay window, and an officer of the law was passing by my home and witnessed it, he'd have every right to enter my home and arrest me.

[Heather]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 No, because the photons wouldn't be leaving the property. Or, using the gun analogy, the bullets wouldn't be firing at you.

We are not talking about shooting someone from private property, and we're not talking about taking a picture of someone to be published without their knowledge.

We're talking about seeing something you may find offensive in someone's home, even though you (the viewer) were "peaking" into their private property.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Heather We are not talking about shooting someone from private property

Do you understand that light is photons?

Photons are "shot" from electrons when they go down energy levels.


It's the same thing as someone firing a bullet at you from behind their window.


Drapes drawn is the same as firing a bullet at you from behind a 10 foot thick concrete wall. You wouldn't see it, hear it, feel it, or anything, even though they were still doing it.

[Heather]

Quote by: ladyphoenix Uh, yeah. Murder is just as illegal whether committed in full view of witnesses or done privately in one's own home, away from prying eyes. In that respect, yes, we are absolutely subject to laws when within our own homes. Does this mean that if sodomy is illegal in my community, that if I break that law, the police are going to come knocking my door down? No. As I said before, there are certain things that are required for such things. One of them is "open and obvious." If I was committing such an act in front of my open bay window, and an officer of the law was passing by my home and witnessed it, he'd have every right to enter my home and arrest me.

You miss my point. Having sex is not breaking the law.

[ladyphoenix]

No, but there are public decency laws, and my example about taking photos of private property from public property illustrates that private property that is in view of the public is still public property for this purpose. Seeing something or someone on private property is different from trespassing on private property, which again, is what my example goes to.

So, in an answer to your question, yes, IN VIEW of the public is the same as IN PUBLIC for the purposes of this discussion.

[Osborn F Enready]

In my opinion, and from what I know of rights, this should be a community issue, where communities exist.

Rural and urban communities, cities, etc, are much different in needs for laws like this, based on frequency and past offenses. If there is no need, I see no reason it should be imposed.

Land size, and window placement is also an obvious difference between properties, which I would think would be an issue in some places more than others.

People who live on land large enough that un-aided eyesight can't detect in detail what is happening behind the glass, should not be forced to have drapes, but then again, nor should anyone.

I believe there is also the point of expected right to privacy. While a passerby is not a peeping tom, per se, it could be an argument in which property rights could be used to aid the "supposed" offender, and justifiably so.

We don't have a right to be "not offended", we have a right to privacy and free expression and belief however.

[Rinoa]

If there is any chance that any person could walk by and see it then it needs to be imposed. Many people don't want to see that, and most parents don't want their children exposed to it. If it can be seen from a public area, it's public indecency. The don't look if you don't wanna see it argument doesn't hold water. It's not my responsibility to hide your private affairs, it's yours.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rinoa said: If there is any chance that any person could walk by and see it then it needs to be imposed.

In your opinion. Not in mine.

Rinoa said: Many people don't want to see that, and most parents don't want their children exposed to it.

Then parents should be better at preventing it, and not try to impose it using government force on everyone. The government isn't a nanny.

Rinoa said: If it can be seen from a public area, it's public indecency.

If it can be seen from a public area, it may be viewed as indecent. It doesn't give you the right to stand and gawk, much less impose force to stop me simply because you don't like what you see.

You don't have a right to "not be offended". It the misconception of rights that leads to this concept.

Rinoa said: The don't look if you don't wanna see it argument doesn't hold water. It's not my responsibility to hide your private affairs, it's yours.

If its in my property, within my home, you have no right looking, and certainly no right to claim to be offended after PEEPING.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Then parents should be better at preventing it, and not try to impose it using government force on everyone. The government isn't a nanny.

If my child is in your backyard peeping, and sees something, then yes it is my fault. But, if my child is out in my front yard, playing basketball, and you and your 'friend' are naked using the shelf in a bay window for intercourse, broad daylight, in plain sight. That's when it's an issue for the government.

If it can be seen from a public area, it may be viewed as indecent. It doesn't give you the right to stand and gawk, much less impose force to stop me simply because you don't like what you see.

I wouldn't wish to stand and gawk, I'd want it removed from public sight. And, in the case that it is public indecency, yes I do have the right to call the police and have them stop you. That's like saying if a flasher lives on a busy road and elects to stand in a window exposing himself to all passersby that no one can tell him to cover himself.

You don't have a right to "not be offended". It the misconception of rights that leads to this concept.

But, that kindof sexual 'offense' can qualify as sexual harassment.

If its in my property, within my home, you have no right looking, and certainly no right to claim to be offended after PEEPING.

I read the original post to imply that it was easily visible to anyone from the sidewalk, not that the person had to strain to see it. Peeping implies being going out of the way to see inside the home.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Rinoa Many people don't want to see that, and most parents don't want their children exposed to it.

Fair enough.

How do you objectively determine what "that" is?

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Rinoa If there is any chance that any person could walk by and see it then it needs to be imposed. Many people don't want to see that, and most parents don't want their children exposed to it. If it can be seen from a public area, it's public indecency. The don't look if you don't wanna see it argument doesn't hold water. It's not my responsibility to hide your private affairs, it's yours.

Why should you have to spend money (if the house did not come with drapes) to to things in their home? It's their property. Sure, children shouldn't see it, but children shouldn't be exposed to bums drinking from a brown bag and begging for money.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rinoa said: If my child is in your backyard peeping, and sees something, then yes it is my fault. But, if my child is out in my front yard, playing basketball, and you and your 'friend' are naked using the shelf in a bay window for intercourse, broad daylight, in plain sight. That's when it's an issue for the government.

I see your point, and in that case, yes, it would be a provocative display and outside the "community standard" for public decency laws. I still don't think this is an issue for State or Federal law however.

Rinoa said: I wouldn't wish to stand and gawk, I'd want it removed from public sight. And, in the case that it is public indecency, yes I do have the right to call the police and have them stop you. That's like saying if a flasher lives on a busy road and elects to stand in a window exposing himself to all passersby that no one can tell him to cover himself.

I agree in that case as well, but there are other cases of what is viewed as "obscene" other than nudity or sexual acts. That is why I don't support this in State or Federal Law, but in community, township or city laws. There is also, as with any law, the possibility of abuse of the law.

Rinoa said: But, that kindof sexual 'offense' can qualify as sexual harassment.

I agree, and at a community level, it should be able to have legal enforcement. By keeping it local, it allows the community, village, town or city to change its laws as the views of the people change.

Rinoa said: I read the original post to imply that it was easily visible to anyone from the sidewalk, not that the person had to strain to see it. Peeping implies being going out of the way to see inside the home.

Again, I agree. I also recognize that in small towns to big cities, moral busybodies like to keep police busy with ridiculous calls of exaggerated offense, which is why I think it should be kept local.

Its also much easier to get special permits to "break" certain laws for special events at the local level, than at the state or federal level.

[Rinoa]

Osborn: Except there are areas in which local law really isn't enforced. There should be a minimal state law that states that it is overridden by local law. That way in areas where they haven't taken the time to spell out specific punishment in that city there is still a consequence that citizens can use, but if they want it different(like if it's a nudist community) they can override it.

Quote by: saltinespike Why should you have to spend money (if the house did not come with drapes) to to things in their home? It's their property. Sure, children shouldn't see it, but children shouldn't be exposed to bums drinking from a brown bag and begging for money.

I would disagree. First of all, by moving the act to another room in the house they can easily move it out of sight without spending a dime. Second, there isn't anything wrong with allowing your child to see that other people aren't as lucky as he is. In fact, a five year old that whines about not having enough toys ought to be taken down to the soup kitchen to hand out the crackers so that they can see what 'not enough toys' really is. Plus, a child that age generally doesn't understand what the brown bag symbolizes...at least not if they've been raised properly.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Fair enough. How do you objectively determine what "that" is?

By the context of the original post. Namely public sexual displays.

[shield772]

what you do in the privacy of your home is your business, so when you have the windows/drapes/curtains/blinds open it is no longer private and is then subject to public scrutiny/decency laws/statutes/ordinances/regulations.