Public Indecency?

So Michigan passed a law outlawing "drive-by pornography". Basically it makes it a crime to watch porn in your car such that anyone else can see it.

I learned about this from an article on Catholic Exchange that goes into detail about how upset the author is about indecent public acts, more specifically, watching pornography DVDs in public view.

He makes the quote here that's probably talking smack to the libertarians of the world:

Bloggers and other Internet commentators are having a great time disparaging the law. Some think it's a denial of fundamental freedom ("Hey dude, my car, my porn, my property; step off"). Some think it's a sign that the Michigan legislature has too much time on its hands. Some think it's just another little law that, combined with hundreds of others, creates a maze that brings the state into every aspect of our lives.

So that leaves the question, is this a law that should be on the books? Does a car count as private property. What happens if you're doing something with the intent of not having anyone watching and someone comes along. Is there a difference between a peeping tom, and someone in an SUV in the next lane over?

I think there's definitely a personal responsiblity issue at hand here, alot to do with the changing times. I don't think there's a difference between someone in the 50's reading a Playboy in the car and someone watching a DVD in their car. The same problem arises. Let's take a look at the DVD at the little league game concern and the Debbie Does Dallas-SUV concern. It's a more or less public place. If said guy decides to watch a little Jenna Jamison, he should expect the proper response of getting the shit kicked out of him or at least public dissaproval. But there's the culture of permissiveness and moral equivalence that's at stake here. But the problem is the culture of acceptance. Everyone is told to be more accepting. Thus, the horndog at the baseball game is "allowed" to watch his video.

Then there's the SUV example. Here's where the culture of not accepting responsiblity comes into play. If by some chance, your child watches the part of DDD that does have adult situations, instead of blaming the other person, do some frickin' parenting. The author would love to take his lack of parenting out on the driver in the other car, but he should just take responsiblity for his own kids. Either tell the kids to look away, or just LET IT GO. They saw 15 seconds of porn, which they will have no idea of what they were seeing anyway, and won't remember anyway.

Which leads to my final quandary? The age old, "What is porn?" question. This becomes especially true when you see a snippet of something. For example: You happen to come up on a car and see a naked chick on the screen. Is that porn? Does context matter in this situation? What if I told you that the naked chick scene was Kate Winslet in Titanic. Does that make a difference? Would that qualify under this Michigan law? Would the writer of the article think that watching "Titanic" is bad?

What if you're driving along and you see a single male in a car watching a porn but in one of those rare instances where the actors aren't having sex? Normally, you wouldn't think anything of it. So do you arrest the guy for watching a movie that would have no effect on you or your kids?

The author is right, we shouldn't have to have these kinds of laws on the books. But then his whole thesis revolves around this statement:

The solution is to eliminate our disordered desires and passions that make the laws necessary in the first place.

Which is fine, but won't do a damn thing to change the situation that he's talking about? How does the author want to change the disordered desires and passions in other people? I would like to see him write an article on that.