[UnderseaLcpl]

I had to think about this for a little bit before forming an opinion. I can see the reasoning behind the court's order and some views in support of it. I can certainly understand the argument about it being beneficial to people he might have interactions with.

However, I'm resigned to my usual Lockean stance on this one. Anyone who has intercourse with this man is doing so out of their own free will and is therefore accepting the consequences. Unless he becomes a rapist or something, the court has no place restricting his rights on the grounds that it is necessary to protect others, for any reason.

Likewise, the court has no compelling moral reason for restricting this man's rights for his own benefit. Granted, he is mentally deficient and may be more prone than most to making unsound decisions, but that is irrelevant. Either this man has been ruled mentally sound enough to be autonomous and should enjoy as little "protection" from the state as he does in the rest of his life, or he has not and is therefore the ward of someone else, in which case he must abide by the decisions of his caretaker(s) and they must accept the consequences of his actions.

This particular issue is no place to draw a moral line when it comes to considering what people may and may not be allowed to do. It is a question of civil liberties because the very act of arbitrarily deciding what is and is not permissible without respect to neutral and negative rights is contrary by nature.