public nudity and the law/legal news
 

Hi guys - once more I am starting a thread without much material or time right now to devote to it. But here is the basic idea: I want to learn more about the legal aspects of going naked in public. And I also want to hear stories/news reports about legal issues regarding nudity as they arise around the globe. I guess this is not so much for kookie type "naked in the news" stories, but more serious issues where people are testing the law or trying to change the law.

So, to start off, here is a summary of what I learned yesterday in an hour of internet research:

OK, some basic background concerning the legality of going naked in public: The key term to understand is "Indecent exposure" and to also understand that the word "indecent" is relative. "Indecent" is subject to very broad interpretation i.e what may be considered indecent in one culture may not in other cultures. That is why nudity laws vary so much from place to place - everyone's interpretation of what is indecent is different. In Saudi Arabia, for example, for a woman to simply show her bare ankle may be considered indecent, while in Africa, some tribes still walk around fully nude and it is not considered indecent. "Indecent exposure" therefore is based on what is called "standards of decency", and those standards are inherently local by nature. They are usually community based in other words, or standards grounded in religious affiliation, ethnic origin, etc. Also, these standards, as you will see, can vary greatly over time even in the same locale.

Now in the US, nudity laws are generally the province of individual states and/or local communities. Sometimes, local communities will enact ordinances that go against state laws, and the courts must intervene to decide which
laws have precedence and why. Also, State Parks, rec areas, federal land etc can have their own regs. But the basic thing to remember is this: When you read that "nudity is legal" in a particular state, town, city or rec area, what it means is this: first of all, of course they are talking about public nudity. Second, it means, very precisely, that "simple nudity does not constitute indecent exposure" i.e simple nudity is not indecent, and therefore it cannot be prosecuted under the law. By simple, I mean totally nude, exposing the genitals etc but not in a way that is offensive, lewd, or aimed at children, etc. BTW, indecent exposure becomes "public indecency", a more serious crime, if sex or lewdness is involved. But that is getting ahead of the game.

OK, but there is a lot more to all of this than that, and here is where it gets kind of complicated. It goes back to this idea of what it indecent and what the standards of decency are in a particular area. You see, those standards are always in a state of flux. In fact, they are so unpredictable they can change at any time, and that change can take place based simply on a complaint or two from local citizens. That is all that it takes. So this is often why you don't see many people walking around fully naked in places where nudity is legal! Take Oregon for example, or Vermont, or San Francisco. In all of these places in the past decade or so, some have tested the law by going naked in public for extended periods - walking the city streets, hanging around town for hours, etc. And in fact, Moira Johnston in NYC is doing just that right now in testing NY topless laws. But here is the problem - because
standards of decency are so fluid and constantly in a state of flux, all it may take is a complaint or two from a local to either get these people arrested and charged with indecent exposure, or perhaps for the city to take action and pass a local anti-nudity ordinance. I'm not sure at this point how widespread it is that an individual can single-handedly bring about an indecent exposure charge against a nude, but it happened in SF, and also in Seattle during the 2009 West Seattle WNBR. Otherwise, if a single complaint can't immediately bring about a police action, complaints lodged with the city can bring about a city council anti-nudity ordinance. THis is what happened in Brattleboro, Vt and Ashland, OR when a few tested the law and some people reacted negatively. So basically, what is in effect happening is that one or two angry locals are actually changing the standard of decency in that area by registering a complaint. That is wielding a lot of power. These local laws may, as I stated above, go against more liberal state laws and so may not stay on the books, but it does kind of muck things up a bit if you are the one wanting going naked :)

So, for starters, that it is a simple, three paragraph, expose on the legality of going naked in public. It is all based on what is considered "decent" as opposed to "indecent" in a particular area, and remember also that the term "nudity is legal" which you see so frequently means that simple nudity (no lewdness) is not considered to be indecent. I'm no lawyer and so if you are and see any errors in my analysis, please let me know :) In particular, I'm not too clear on the citizen complaint aspect at this time.

Otherwise, we'll see where this thread goes, but I just wanted to throw this out there. It would be my hope to keep any further discussion on a fairly high level, i.e focusing on the legal principals and how they vary around the world, rather than talking about how this girl or that got naked and caused a stir, etc.

thanks,

Klondike

Funny you should start this thread now, I just saw this article today: Oregon judge rules it’s OK to strip naked in protest of TSA

Fango

yes, in Oregon, its also an issue of freedom of speech. I don't know if we are the only state in which that is the case, but I think so - so getting naked is exercising your right to freedom of speech. Its constitutionally protected! I think this is why Ashland's anti nudity ordinance (passed a few years ago thanks to Earth Friend Gen!) got struck down by the state court - because it violated the state's principle that going naked was a form of freedom of expression.

I could get a bit engrossed in this for a while. :) There are two or three issues that are sort of off shoots of all of this that I haven't talked about yet. One is nude beaches and what it means to have a legal nude beach as opposed to an unofficial nude beach. Also, what protections naturists have in general. Also, what is meant by "public" and how does that relate to voyeurism, especially when it comes to the taking of photos.

Klondike

Earth Friend Gen
 

Usually, when trying to educate others about the law, throwing in a few case studies is a good idea. So, I bring you the case of Earth Friend Gen vs the city of Ashland, OR.

Earth Friend Gen, aka the Pastie Lady, aka Jennifer Moss, has appeared on the pages of OCC many times, mostly back in 2008-2010 or so when she was making headlines around the west coast. In fact, before she came to Ashland, she caused a stir in Ojai, CA with her topless roller skating around town. Enough people were offended by this to cause some political repercussions, and so she moved north to hopefully greener pastures in Ashland, OR. Ashland, with its liberal reputation and relaxed nudity laws seemed the perfect place that would allow her to continue satisfying those exhibitionist yearnings. So once in town, she often got naked and could be seen roller blading here and there. She also came to Portland occasionally for more of the same. Gen really is a little crazy. She kept trying to call what she was doing art, or freedom of expression, or attaching political motives to it all, but basically it was just exhibitionism, IMHO - plain and simple

But anyway, what happened eventually is well documented from a legal point of view, and was complicated by Oregon state law which permits nudity as a form of freedom of speech or expression. Detailed discussions can be found on line by Googling "Earth Friend Gen", Ashland, ordinance, etc. The ACLU and the Naturist Action Committee (NAC) got involved on Gen's behalf. An example of how well discussed was the issue, go here and read what a NAC board member had to say about Ashland's anti-nudity ordinance and how it changed for the worse in response to Gen and some others:

http://www.ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1225

So, Gen really put the town on the spot and caused a lot of nitpicking over the exact meaning of the law and where do you draw the line between simple nudity and inappropriate nude activity. NAC members actually helped the Ashland city council change the language of the ordinance which became too broad and restrictive so that it eventually preserved personal liberties. Gen herself didn't get cited or arrested, although in Portland, she was stopped by police on one occasion while roller blading and asked to dress.

Another issue with the new Ashland ordinance came to a head in 2010 when the ACLU got involved and threatened legal action based on the idea that it violated freedom of expression. This, they argued, would cause it to run afoul of Oregon State law. The freedom of expression issue focused in particular on the the idea that it might be legal to get naked if you were protesting something, even if it was outlawed otherwise. Maybe this is why Gen frequently would describe her outings as being "for peace" or "for the environment" or something, i.e. giving them a political motive. And so Ashland city council members wrangled again over the language of the ordinance and wrote in clauses permitting nudity "as a form of protest", thereby making it more defensible when going up against State Law (and the ACLU).

After that, I am not sure what happened. I thought I had read that eventually, the case was taken up by the State courts which struck down the ordinance, but I can't find this on the internet anymore, so I am not sure. IN any case,
the whole issue surrounding nudity as a form of expression here in Oregon is added protection that you don't find in other states. And the "nudity for the sake of protest" issue, preserving rights for, say, WNBR riders protesting oil dependence but not simple nudity for its own sake, has surfaced several times in the state in recent years, in Portland as well as other towns. Portland actually has a nudity ban similar to Ashland's, which is probably why, to soften it somewhat against more liberal State laws, they "clause in" permissible nudity when engaged in protest.

Gen, meanwhile, keeps moving around :) I think she may have headed back to California. Despite numerous complaints lodged against her over the years, and despite having caused changes in local laws in more than one city, I don't think she was ever arrested or charged directly with indecent exposure...

Another case study that would be interesting to delve into would be that of the city of Boulder, Co vs the nudes that have driven city officials there crazy over the past ten years. In this case, the legal issues are not about nudity as a form of freedom of expression (protected in Oregon but not in Colorado) but nudity as a form of disorderly conduct(!), giving police more power to crack down on things like the naked pumpkin run, etc.

Klondike

public nudity laws state by state in the US
 

At the state level in the US, I know that public nudity laws vary and in some states, it is sometimes claimed that "nudity is legal". Well, in post no 1, I defined what I thought is meant by "nudity is legal", but I also was under the impression that this only applied to states like Vermont and Oregon. Now, it seems the picture is a bit more complicated than that. There is so much to learn :)

At present, my understanding (and this could change) is that every state but two (maybe more..) have indecent exposure laws which restrict nudity in public. Those laws fall into two categories - those that make the nudity a crime only if it is accompanied by offensive or lewd behavior. In these cases, proof of a crime requires not only proof of nudity but a witness who was clearly offended or harmed in some way. But in other cases, the indecent exposure law is more restrictive than that, making even simple nudity without intent to arouse or offend a crime. Now I don't know which states have which version of this law, but by my earlier definition, those that require intent to offend regard mere simple nudity as legal. California would be one example of such a state. There are many others. Some cities and towns in California complain that it is too tough to convict people of indecent exposure under the state law, and enact tougher public nudity laws so that they can deal with local problems that arise. In other words, they ban nudity altogether - i.e. decree that even simple nudity by itself is illegal. Does this necessarily conflict with the state law? I don't really understand the state-town relationship there, but it may be something that has to be argued on a case by case basis. But in the meantime, you will often find references to "public nudity laws" or "nudity laws" or indecent exposure laws". All three of these names refer to more or less the same thing. Perhaps "public nudity law" is the more local variety where intent to offend is not a requirement for conviction.

Anyway, so that takes care of most of the states in the US. BUT......and this is the big but.....two states (there may be more), Vermont and Oregon, don't appear to have indecent exposure laws at all. Or at least, not ones really identifiable as such when compared to the other states. Vermont simply has a "lewd and laviscious behavior" law which really applies only to the more overtly sexual types of activities, leaving wide open the acceptance of simple nudity. And Oregon seems to only have a public indecency law which sounds similar to the lewd and laviscious one in Vermont. Again, this leaves the door wide open for simple nudity to occur. I ran across an article about the Oregon law and how occasionally, some want it toughened to be better able to respond to situations where guys expose themselves and offend, because apparently it really is tough to convict unless the activity is very obviously sexual and lewd.

Anyway, so in how many states in the US is "nudity legal". If by that I still mean the states where simple nudity is not considered indecent exposure, quite a few besides Vermont and Oregon. But perhaps only Vermont and Oregon, with no indecent exposure law at all, can be considered to have laws so relaxed as to make them almost like havens for public nudity in this country.

Like I said, there may be other states besides Oregon and Vermont (New York?) with no indecent exposure law like most other states. BTW, I mean - some stuff I write is going to turn out to need revising as i learn more so don't take anything here as absolute gospel..:)

Klondike

State nudity laws
 

Nudist Resorts.org provides a page listing relevant state laws:

http://www.nudist-resorts.org/statutes.htm

thanks for that - I looked it over.

About half of the states are listed. What you will find related to my earlier post is that most of those listed have the "broader" (more liberal) indecent exposure law, meaning the nudity must be accompanied by some offensive, lewd behavior ("intent to arouse" is a commonly used term, as is "likely to cause affront and alarm").

Massachusetts only lists as relevant "common law". I'll have to look that one up to see what is going on there!

Tennessee would appear to have the stricter version of "indecent exposure" where there need not be intent to arouse or offend to prosecute. in other words, its more of a "prude" state :) (despite Bonnaroo)

Where the broader indecent exposure law is found, the law might be referred to as a "Lewdness" law or "public lewdness" law. NEw Hampshire's is called "indecent exposure and lewdness", kind of odd - that implies that the indecent exposure refers to the simple nudity only. But since you still have to have both present to prosecute, they are not banning simple nudity per se.

Now New York has two laws, a "public lewdness" law, and an "Exposure of person" law. The "exposure of person" law is strict, i.e conservative. Having that indicates to me that New York is in a relative minority of states which ban simple nudity in public. But I could be wrong about that. in any case, this makes New York sort of the reverse of Oregon, at least in the case of New York City. If toplessness is allowed in the city, then the city is more liberal than the state, not the other way around as in Oregon. But I'm still learning about all this, so I'm just thinking out loud.

ORegon is not listed..

Other western states generally do not ban simple nudity. The language here, as in some other states though vary somewhat. Other terms occasionally used in the law include "Reckless", "negligent", and "disorderly" and I don't know quite how these stack up against the more commonly used terms. "Disorderly" crops up a few times and has really broad connotations - seems it could apply to lots of types of behavior while nude like drunkedness, yelling, etc - stuff that goes on in Boulder during naked runs, etc. So I guess you can't run naked and yell after having had a few beers, but maybe you can still be lewd? :) That would be the case if the law substituted words like "intent to arouse" with "disorderly" perhaps. So its all in the wording...but actually, NO states allow lewdness, I mean, if lewdess (intent to arouse, affront, offend, self gratify etc) is not specifically referred to in the indecent exposure law (like Tennessee), it must be covered elsewhere.

BTW - Tennessee's law states only that it is illegal to "knowingly appears in a public place in a state of nudity". This law is not given a name, but it sounds like the stricter public nudity ordinances that towns sometimes enact (and to which I referred to earlier - Ashland, Or, etc) where the intent is to have broader power to control public nudity in your local area.

KLondike

I'm just kind of trying to learn to think like a lawyer here....

Just one more note regarding the content of that link:

North Carolina's law is one of those that sort of seems to "fall in the cracks" when you read it. It would appear to be on the conservative side as lewdness in conjunction with the nudity is not specifically mentioned as a requirement. But the term "willful" is used. So how does "willful" compare with a term like "knowingly" (as in Tennessee's law)? I mean, I didn't go to law school :) But it does seem likely that in that state mere simple nudity is not legal.

Two other states with wording that is a bit different than the norm:

District of Columbia: illegal is "any obscene or indecent exposure of his or her person" The key word is obscene as many consider simple nudity to be obscene. This appears conservative.

Maryland: "General intent, including reckless and negligent conduct" OK, what in heck does that mean? I don't know...



KLondike

....EDIT (attach to last post).

Virginia: appears like Maryland, i.e. more conservative, as again, the word "obscene " is used but not the usual lewdness terminology.

And finally, to add some confusion, Rhode Island's law, which reads like a typical indecent exposure law, is actually called a "disorderly conduct" law. OK, this is why lawyers give me fits...

Klondike

OK, here is a link that expands on DRDavenports link in that in includes all of the states:

http://www.nudistlaw.com/state_laws.htm

If you go to the main page, you will have access to a wealth of info on the subject..

more later..

Klondike