A woman walking her seven-year-old son to school in Springfield, VA happened upon a house where she noticed an open window and, beyond it, a naked man sitting drinking coffee in his kitchen. After giving the man the finger, the concerned mother shielded her son's eyes, then continued off to school before calling the police. Shortly thereafter the police entered the man's home, weapons drawn, and arrested the man for indecent exposure -- causing him to lose his job and imperiling his opportunity to share custody of his own child.

This past week the man was resoundingly acquitted by a jury of his peers who deliberated less than twenty minutes. One juror remarked that she had a hard time not laughing during some of the testimony. Nonetheless, the man, Erick Williamson, was convicted by a judge in a previous trial who, we suspect, does not share the sense of humor of the jurors (or HRIT).

Williamson reported his feelings about the verdict as "relief, unbelievable weight off my shoulders after six months. I was not interested in exhibiting myself to anybody on the street, but in hindsight, now that that's happened, I won't have an open window in my house."

Surely the offended woman believes herself to be of superior moral character to any nude man, but, really, what does she think she is teaching her son other than one-finger sign language for a crude, hostile and undignified (if unfortunately common) message? After all, the body parts at issue are presumably familiar to most boys. Perhaps she simply felt compelled to demonstrate revulsion at the male form?

We also wonder if this model mom considered which rude behavior -- the "exposer's" or her own -- her young offspring is likely to begin repeating, immediately, to no good end?

On behalf of her son, may we ask, "Momma, how rude is THAT?

[click here to read an AP story on this subject on Google News.]