Of course, back then, a person's home was their castle.  The old man had a habit of running around the house in his jockey's.  Nobody had the gall ever be peeking in our huge living room window and ratting him out the the Man.  

Also, reminding me that he lost is sort of moot in terms of my purpose. We know he lost. We knew he would. I don't deny that he was overpowered by the system. But that doesn't make it right. And I will talk about things that aren't right even if juries disagree. And I will talk about it even if the ACLU doesn't see the point. History is full of evil perpetrated by juries and judges. The first step to correcting those problems is to talk about them.

No, I wouldn't expect him to win. And the fact that he couldn't win is at the crux of the ethical problem I am trying to expose. As I have mentioned, I am not so much defending Williamson's behavior in this incident as I am condemning certain aspects of the reaction to him (which is a typical reaction). In fact, there is no behavior to defend, because he isn't even accused of doing anything. He is only accused of failing to conceal himself -- a passive omission. Williamson would also most likely be on the other side of the argument if he were female under the same circumstances. That is, Ms. Williamson would be viewed as the victim of a peeping male, rather than being viewed as a flasher. No part of Williamson's behavior under question was active. It is all about omission. He didn't "protect others" from their viewing of his body, which is a responsibility that is relatively unique to males in our culture, at least in terms of the legal consequences.

It might help others to understand my position by looking at a similar injustice based in ancient social organization and outdated norms. Consider the recent controversy over the burqa in Islamic society. Women are responsible for hiding themselves from the view of others, and they are punished if they falter. Few people in the United States seem much inclined to defend this tradition, and there is particularly much anger expressed about the unfair burden it places on women in that culture. Here we see the same kind of problem with the role reversed. Are men in the United States somehow less deserving of the same protection? Naturally, I can easily accept that men should cover themselves while women should not have to wear a burqa, but there is still a bizarre twist on the way men are treated on this issue that makes the comparison somewhat valid. I will elaborate.

To me, it sounds like Williamson could very well have simply been drunk. That would explain unresponsiveness and seeming unawareness of his surroundings. In fact, I think that was alluded to in some of the other reports -- at least I think he was drinking the night before. But that doesn't really matter, either, in the least. It doesn't matter because it suggests he needs a reason to be unresponsive in his own home. It isn't unreasonable or uncommon for a person to psychologically disengage in the privacy of their own home. Even without any explanation, being somewhat unresponsive in one's home is, I think, almost a basic right. A female wouldn't need an explanation for forgetting to close the blinds or not erring on the side of caution in her assessment of the risk of being seen. She would need only to have just forgotten or misjudged, and no other assumption would be imposed (nor any Draconian punishment).

The issue here with me is that men are assumed to be sexual aggressors in the absence of evidence to the contrary. That is a presumption of guilt, and it is wrong. It may be based in powerful social norms and historical tradition, but men are losing all the assumed benefits that came with that archaic tradition, while still being subjected to all of its costs and its hazards. The times they are changin'. Knee-jerk reactions to male nudity resulting in prosecution for serious crimes -- with no warning and no opportunity to correct the omission -- should be changing to. It should be going the way of all the rest of the gender role artifacts of prehistoric social organization that are finally being discarded. If not altogether, then surely you could agree that men could have at least the right be served notice and given an opportunity to correct any failure to conceal themselves in their own home. This would seem reasonable even if we kept up the "shoot on sight" rule for male nudity in public?

I don't deny the path could very easily be an easement. For that matter, the sidewalk may be on the property, too, and even half the street. But it sure isn't the sidewalk where these people were, if the reporter is being honest. They had an unusually close view -- something Williamson may very easily not have expected.

The windows also appear partially occluded and relatively small. I can't find any images of anything that pops into my mind when I hear the term "picture window" (like, say, the display window in a store). This raises questions about how close to the windows Williamson might have expected others to turn up, at what angle, and his judgment about the likelihood of being observed.