Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Good News: Mooning Is Legal In Maryland

This is topic Good News: Mooning Is Legal In Maryland in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004425

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-04-2006, 10:39 AM:

[Moon]

According to the Washington Post

quote:
Mooning Deemed 'Disgusting' but No Crime in Md.

By Ernesto Londoo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 4, 2006; B01

Acquitting a Germantown man who exposed his buttocks during an argument with a neighbor, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled yesterday that mooning, while distasteful, is not illegal in Maryland.

"If exposure of half of the buttock constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty," Judge John W. Debelius III said after the bench trial, reversing the ruling of a District Court judge.

Debelius made clear his disdain for the defendant, calling the alleged act "disgusting" and "demeaning." The outcome could have been different, he suggested, if the man had been on trial for "being a jerk."

The case arose from a June 7 argument between the defendant, Raymond Hugh McNealy, 44, and a neighbor, Nanette Vonfeldt. Vonfeldt pressed charges against McNealy after he allegedly yelled and, according to Vonfeldt, threatened to "blow up my building" as she and her 8-year-old daughter walked out of their apartment, in the 20200 block of Shipley Terrace in Germantown.

"Then, for whatever reason, in full view of my daughter, he mooned us," Vonfeldt wrote in a court document. The two had a long-standing feud over issues before their homeowners association, which held a heated meeting the night before, McNealy's attorneys said. McNealy wanted Vonfeldt off the association's board, his attorneys said.

The case went to trial Sept. 12 before Montgomery District Court Judge Eugene Wolfe, who ruled against the defendant. Indecent exposure in Maryland is punishable by as much as three years in prison and a $1,000 fine.

McNealy's attorneys appealed the verdict, arguing that indecent exposure in Maryland constitutes the willful public display of a person's "private parts" -- which, they argued, do not include a person's buttocks.

Senior Assistant State's Attorney Dan Barnett said the indecent exposure law in Maryland is ambiguous.

"In our minds, this was not a bathing suit scenario," said Barnett, who supervises Montgomery County prosecutors who handle cases in District Court. "This was a grown man exposing himself to an 8-year-old girl."

Defense attorneys cited a 1983 case of a woman who was arrested after protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered the front of her body. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in 1986 that indecent exposure is limited to a person's genitals.

James Maxwell, one of McNealy's attorneys, said yesterday's ruling should "bring comfort to all beachgoers and plumbers" in the state.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-05-2006, 08:38 AM:

Wow!!! is this good news or what? Next time I'm in Maryland I'll take full advantage of this ruling. If he had dropped trou as the governor or the prez came by I'll bet the outcome would have been different.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-05-2006, 03:00 PM:

I live in Maryland and saw this article yesterday.

I am glad about this ruling. Otherwise - it would have made the beach less fun........

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-05-2006, 10:04 PM:

Doing away with that law is likely a good thing. Possible conversation in the county lock up:

Inmate 1: "Hey, what are ya in for?"

Inmate 2: Mooning.

Inmate 1: You enjoy showing your ass outdoors?

Inmate 2: Heh. It was just a joke.

Inmate 1: Grab your ankles and show your ass indoors. No joke.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-06-2006, 05:26 PM:

The judge said the act was disgusting and demeaning, isn't that exactly what the man intended? It seems to me that he conveyed a very clear message. Would it now be legal to moon the judge as a comment on an unsatisfactory ruling? Does this now mean mooning is OK on TV?

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 01-22-2006, 04:23 AM:

Legal? Probably. But the man would likely get thrown out of court. And mooning on TV? They already do it. :-P

Honestly, I don't see much of a problem with mooning. It was in very poor taste for this man to do it in front of an 8 year old girl, yes... but should it be illegal? Absolutely not. There are FAR more important things for the legal system to worry about.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-22-2006, 01:04 PM:

And of course you are all invited to join in for the annual "Mooning of Amtrak" which takes place this year on Saturday, 8 July 2006. When I lived in SoCal I never missed it if I had the day off, either from aboard the trains or on the ground.

http://www.moonamtrak.org/ [Moon]

[Edit]: Fixed date thanks to eagle-eyed Phil. [beer]

[ 01-22-2006, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-22-2006, 03:12 PM:

Hey Prof, I think this year it's on Saturday July 8th. All day and into the night at the usual place across the street from the "Mugs Away" bar...way down in Orange County.

As usual, I'm sure there will be ample TV coverage of the lack of coverage. [Wink]