Top court reserves judgment in masturbation case

[name not needed]

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has reserved judgment in the case of a B.C. man caught masturbating in his own apartment living room.

Canada's top court has to decide whether Daryl Clark of Nanaimo should have been convicted of committing an indecent act in public.

Clark was sentenced to four months in jail because he could be seen from the outside through his windows.

"You don't have a right to subject other people, without their consent to this kind of exhibit. But it happens just sometimes because ... you forgot to close the blinds," said Vonn. "Things happen."

-snip-

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/02/scoc_clark_masturbation041102.html

[sniffa]

1. i feeL for the guy

i Love being watched

[pagerbear]

9. I'll be right over!

[sniffa]

13. i'LL Leave the drapes open for you

;)

[pagerbear]

19. Woo-hoo!

[Wat_Tyler]

2. Yeah, this is all pathetic.

How this came to court, I have no idea.

[redqueen]

3. A lady in another apartment saw him, called the cops

[Wat_Tyler]

5. I know the case. It's all gotten out of hand.

[ladjf]

4. I'm a pretty liberal person. But, the guy was committing an

act of exhibitionism. That's rightfully against the law.

[WindRavenX]

6. Why couldn't the person just not watch him?

Weren't there SC cases that ruled that it's up to the people to divert their eyes from sexually explicit shops or acts on private property?

[redqueen]

10. I doubt it

The judge in this case is withholding judgment due to not knowing for sure if the guy was accidentally or intentionally doing this.

However I know at least in some states it is explicitly illegal to engage in sexual activity where others can see into your windows.

I see your point, WindRavenX, but the argument will be that kids will not exercise good judgment. I'm sure you don't think a 9 year old on their way to school should face the risk of seeing something out of Blue Velvet because he happened to look at the wrong window.

[WindRavenX]

12. well obviously the crux of the case is...

...whether he did this INTENTIONALLY.
Obviously, if it was a mistake (c'mon, we've all been caught) that he didn't close the door/blind then I don't see how he can be punished :shrug:

[redqueen]

15. That's what they're working out... whether or not it can be determined

if the act was intentional or unintentional.

Read the rabble thread. It may have been intentional. If it was, do you think he should have been punished?

[WindRavenX]

17. no he should not be punished

Why was the woman looking into his room?
The guy might have been looking for attention, but the woman didn't have to look.

[redqueen]

18. This is not about the woman

Who knows how many other people (including minors) could have happened closer by his window than this woman and her family were, and looked around and seen this?

IMO intentionally flaunting this is and should be illegal.

[WindRavenX]

21. He's just wankin' off

I don't see what the problem is. It's not like he's murdering someone in front of their eyes :shrug:

[redqueen]

23. OK

Well then let me ask, how old would you want your children to be before seeing an adult male wanking off? I understand you can't control everything in life, but there are certain reasonable expectations. Where I would be just fine with women exposing their breasts, I would not be fine with having guys able to stroke it where people can see without intending to see that kind of thing.

I think most people can agree that masturbation in public is not a reasonable expression of freedom. And if they can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy did indeed intend to make his actions visible to passersby, then I think he definitely committed a punishable act.

[WindRavenX]

25. I agree that if it was in public then he should be punished

But due to the fact that 1)it took place in his private living quaters and 2)the woman could have simply lowered the blinds or drapes.
This was in his home and not in the public. I fail to see why the woman just didn't lower her blinds...

[redqueen]

27. It took place in his private living quarters, however

This is from the thread linked in Wat's post:

"Don Martin has a column on this case in today's Post (concluding, incidentally, that it's common sense that "private space is, by definition, only private when it's out of public sight.") "

Pretty reasonable, no? If he puts himself in public sight, the onus of keeping his actions out of sight should not be left with his neighbors. He is the one engaging in an activity which is not acceptable in public.

[WindRavenX]

28. I can look into any part of many houses

When does the "out of private sight" thing become far fetched? I can look into my neighbor's bathroom.
A private house is private property. When people start looking into private property, they are the ones encrouching on privacy.
It's too easy to look into another's bedroom. And we all know what goes on THERE.

[ladjf]

24. You make a reasonable point. However, if the person sees the

act being done and then looks away, they have , nevertheless been involuntarily exposed to something that they wouldn't have looked at intentionally. If that person had been your child, how would you have felt about it?

[WindRavenX]

26. Um, I wouldn't feel bad

It's nothing, really.

[Wat_Tyler]

7. Here's the Babble thread on it.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=006836

[ohiosmith]

8. Don't look.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

11. Um HELLO?

Close your frigging DRAPES lady. You don't have to stand there and gape at him choking his chicken.

GEEZ Louise and this is CANADA? Wow.

People should be allowed to masturbate in peace, criminey.

[the Princess]

14. Dear God he can't even self abuse in his own home?

What has the world come to? Why was the neighbor watching? I don't normally look in my neighbors windows - I'm not voyeristic. Generally. :)

[NoSheep]

22. LMFAO

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. Thank God this was not in the US... Thomas would have to

recuse himself. So would Souter and O'Connor

[Sin]

20. if there are any peeping tom laws

Can't he counter sue the lady?