|
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
nude beaches and public nudity events
OK, shifting now to a topic that may be of more immediate interest to members, exactly what is the legal framework that allows one to go naked on a beach or at a public nudity event like Bare to Breakers, OCF, Fremont, etc.
This link is a great place to start. Click on "nudity and the law". http://www.nakedplaces.net/usa_0.html#law I will quote the first paragraph of this, as in part it expands on what I wrote above, affirming much of it. This is written with specific reference to nude beaches: "The legality of nude beaches in the U.S. is convoluted, and part of the difficulty lies in deciphering what laws apply to what places. There is no federal law that addresses nudity. Summaries of the various state laws can be viewed at NudistLaw.com. Most state laws regarding nudity address nakedness in the context of lewd behavior and do not directly address the issue of nude sunbathing on public lands. These laws are usually written in language that clearly outlaws displays of nudity that are intended to shock or offend, but wording like willfully, with intent and with reckless disregard makes the question of non-affrontive nudity subject to interpretation. So if Person A is sunbathing naked at a sufficiently isolated location and Person B wanders by and is irked by the sight of nudity, Person B can claim offense but Person A can claim that his or her nudity was not intended to offend, which starts a debate about whether nudity is illegal when it causes offense or only when it is intended to cause offense. Furthermore, smaller administrative entities like county or municipal governments often have laws that more definitively ban all nudity in public, regardless of whether or not lewd intent is involved, effectively closing any loopholes that exist in state laws." There is a wealth of information there (My emphasis added). Key points include areas where interpretation is difficult, like when words like "willfully, with intent and with reckless disregard" are used. I alluded to this in my earlier post, and wondered how this should be interpreted. Also, there is the situation where a passerby is offended, but the intent of the naked one was not to offend. And finally, there is the mention of more restrictive local laws which may conflict with state laws. but so where we stand with nude beaches and events with nudity - I guess maybe I could start with beaches since the link talks mainly about that. To reiterate the above, the legality of nude beaches is convoluted because it is dependent on state, county and local laws which vary quite a bit and are subject to interpretation. Just as an aside here, you should be aware by now that clearly, the vast majority of state laws regarding indecent exposure were passed a long time ago, before there were nude beaches, and mainly to address things like guys flashing their dick for old ladies and little girls, etc. you know, that type of stuff. So they don't really address simple nudity as people really didn't do that sort of thing much in the past - the nudist attitude and lifestyle prevalent today didn't really exist until maybe mid 20th century. And so since separate laws addressing more specifically the nudist credo and lifestyle, "nude but not lewd" etc, do not exist, naturism as a practice is not addressed and so one must do the best they can interpreting older indecent exposure laws and applying them to nudists. OK, so then along came the nude beach, and with it, challenges to existing state and local laws intended to address mainly more lewd types of behavior. And so began the concept of "simple nudity" and whether or not the law allows for that. In most states and perhaps in limited circumstances, it does, but again, interpretation can be difficult. And now I'll get more specific and talk about the different types of nude beaches from a legal point of view. First up, there are the legal nude beaches. Now if you read more at nakedplaces.net, you will find that relatively few nude beaches in the US are "legally designated" nude beaches. Sometimes called simply "legal nude beaches" or maybe "official nude or CO beaches", a "legally designated" nude beach refers to one in which a local government or entity has specifically written in a provision or clause permitting nudity at that location. You cannot be cited or harassed. Some examples of "legally designated" nude beaches include Hippie Hollow, and I think Haulover. From there, you go to a beach like Blacks Beach, for example, in California, where nudity is assumed by many to be legal but in reality, it only was officially designated as such for a three year period way back in the seventies. That official designation was rescinded in 1977, whereupon the nudes moved to adjacent state park land. The State Park regs continue to allow for nudity as long as no one complains. The situation at Blacks is echoed on a lot of other beaches that are located on federal or state recreation lands, but the exact nature of the legal issue varies. There is no universal anti-nudity law that applies to all federal lands, but in some cases, local county laws, which may be stricter, may be enacted and, if enforced by federal officials, cause a beach to be shut down. When federal officials (i.e. park rangers) enforce local laws, this is referred to as "concurrent law enforcement". Also, many nude beaches are located on national seashores, which is federal land. Generally, because there is no federal anti-nudity law, this is OK. But in some cases, specific provisions may ban nudity, like with the Cape Cod National Seashore. Interestingly, on the only two known nude beaches there, the cops look the other way anyway :) Then when you are talking about state parks, it varies again as each state is different. I'll leave that out for now as I don't have a good handle on that yet. Finally, what if you are simply nude in a very remote area, all by yourself. Often this is going to be on federal land of some type. Now here, if anyone sees you and complains, that is where the problem lies. Obviously, if you are not seen, how can anything bad happen to you :) But if you are seen, even if no nudity law exists, you could be charged with something like disturbing the peace. Anyway, so thats a quick look at beaches, but I've probably only just scratched the surface. As i keep saying, my knowledge is evolving.. Klondike |
Quote:
DR |
Quote:
thanks, Klondike |
nude beach case study
A lot has been written about nude beaches from a legal point of view, and many continue to have problems. But as a way of sort of tying together much of what I have talked about already, I offer you this link which I found interesting.
http://www.capitalsun.com/assmd.html This is a beach in Maryland which I don't know much about, but because, as i think I mentioned earlier, Maryland's indecent exposure law is stricter than most i.e. it does not allow for simple nudity, the legal status of this beach is tenuous even though it is located on federal land. This is the interesting part, and I imagine somewhat unique given the legal climate. You would not see this problem in most other states except when locals complain. But in Maryland, State Law requires federal officials to act (acting concurrently now with state officials and laws) to insure that laws are not broken. But the specific language if you read this link is perpetually confusing - neither encouraging nor discouraging nudity! In other words, get naked at your own risk. A NPS (National Park Service) employee not involved in enforcement may come by and ignore you, while an NPS enforcement employee coming by 5 minutes later could cite you! It must be really unnerving getting naked on this beach.... Klondike |
Quote:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6820409_new...less-laws.html Klondike |
Ashland, OR again, naked mayor Catherine Shaw and devious dealings
Somehow I got back into reading about the goings on in Ashland, OR back in 2009-2010, and found it very entertaining. In addition, I was reminded of former Ashland mayor Catherine Shaw, and how she was filmed naked in the movie "The Same River Twice" while she was in her 20's. She is beautiful, blond, and fully nude in the movie. The movie also shows her later in life leading Ashland City Council meetings. She was not mayor anymore at the time of the nudity ban in 2009.
Politically, Ashland is a divided town (like so many western towns that have been invaded by urbanites - Telluride, Aspen, others) and this I gather is reflected in the city council. Here is a fun read: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/709270326 Among those mentioned in the article is a city councilman named Eric Navickas, who figured prominently in the Ashland nudity ban as an opponent. Eric apparently likes to get naked himself and knows a lot about nude goings on in Ashland in general. In fact, he even hosted a naked gallery show to drum up opposition to the Ashland ban: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2411477/posts also entertaining as it appeared on the free republic website. Eric has also been arrested for his political activism, and lists other naked goings on in this article where he is interviewed quite extensively about the Ashland nudity ban: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/g...everyone-else/ Included in this interview is a very provocative and revealing charge: read on: "Anyway, several days after a majority of Council refused to support this proposal, a nudist claiming to be from Minnesota arrived and began walking around various schools. This lasted about two days and then he was gone. The action was so specific to the Council decision that it was hard not to think it was specifically contrived to provoke the city into banning nudity. There has been a lot of speculation as to whether the individual was paid, but that would be very difficult to prove; we are left discussing this in the context of having a real problem with nudists around schools. Perhaps our own miniature version of the Reichstag fire that we’ll never know the facts on." Oh, this is fascinating :) So all of this gives you a lot of insight into what went on in the town and in the political arena as a result. Earth Friend Gen is not mentioned, but that 66 yo guy from Minnesota who walked naked near a school gets lots of text. Was he indeed paid by sinister, conservative forces to do this? :) Clearly, he was even more responsible than Gen for the political furor that resulted in the change in the ordinance. incidently, Eric Navickas referred to former mayor Cathy Shaw as a "Nazi", strange given the fact she was a California transplant and comes across as a flower child in the movie "The same river twice". I have that film at home. There are a couple of great scenes of her fully naked on this rafting trip, climbing rocks, sunning next to the river etc. Beautiful.....but otherwise a somewhat annoying film to me in some respects because they spend so much time focusing on the character's later lives (which are not that exciting most of them). But the nudity is cool - and the film has a sort of "Big Chill" feel to it only naked. Klondike |
Ashland, Brattleboro and naked infiltrators
Regarding the 66 yo "nudist" that mysteriously showed up in Ashland back in 2009, walked around naked for awhile, and thus figured prominently in the town's nudity ban as a result - I seem to recall hearing a similar story about an older nudist or nudists from out of town (parts unknown) showing up in Brattleboro Vt during their nudity wars and doing more or less the same thing- Walking around town naked. This occurred shortly after the news about the local naked teens went viral on the internet. So what is going on? Brattleboro also wrestled with a ban, and the reason went beyond the teens, focusing on those mysterious outsiders who it was feared would give the town a bad reputation. So who were these out of towners? Was the Ashland naked guy secretly paid by fundamentalist religious groups, as hinted by Eric Navickas? What about the Brattleboro "nudists"? Same thing?
This would be fascinating to research. Using public nudity as a weapon against, well......public nudity! It is well known among conspiracy buffs that ultra right wing groups have used similar tactics in the past to heighten negative public attitudes towards fringe groups on the left. THey also do it to create a little fear, but I wouldn't speculate much more on this regarding public nudity without looking into it more. And one could certainly make the case that naked people on the left do enough damage to themselves in the eyes of the "silent majority" that they really don't need any help from the right. After all, Earth Friend Gen was in all likelihood a genuine liberal. And the type of shenanigans that sometimes go on at nude beaches causing political trouble for them is often perpetrated by gays. So I don't know..BTW, I was never that enthusiastic about Gen and even ranted over at Coccozellas about her exactly for this reason - that she could become a political liability to those that support public nudity. She was at Coccos promoting her "causes", which I quickly tried to point out were not peace, love and environment awareness, but, simply put - her body! Klondike |
infiltrators or fanatical exhibitionists?
....attach to previous post...
...but the pattern of these proposed "naked infiltrators" in Ashland and Brattleboro does show some striking similarities. For example, both occurred only after known and well publicized occurrences of public nudity took place in those towns. So one could imagine also that in both cases, local officials were deeply involved in discussions about what to do about these outbreaks, perhaps nearing crucial votes on proposed legislation, when the "infiltrators" mysteriously arrived. I mean, are there male nudists and exhibitionists that are SO fanatical about what they do that they will travel thousands of miles just to walk naked in a town upon suddenly hearing that it is legal to do so? But wouldn't they already know that those towns (and states) are legal, without the need for a well publicized incident of nudity to tell them? If they are that fanatical, they should not only know already, but perhaps have already moved there! Thats IMHO - so the infiltrator from the right argument has some appeal... Klondike |
...attach to previous post...
...and when nudity is legal in your town, its by nature gonna be all downhill no matter what after that. Test the law, or show your support for others, get naked yourself, whatever - it will remain legal so long as nobody actually goes out and really does it. Both the left and the right know this. It saddens the left, heartens the right. But nonetheless, Eric Navickia stated that Ashland was ready to vote against the ban despite Earth Friend Gen's antics when the 66 yo from Minnesota showed up, got naked himself, and suddenly tipped the vote the other way. Hah - so maybe its an age/sex thing - Gen was cute, but the old guy just wagged his wrinkled thing. So for an infiltrator from the right to be effective, clearly it would make sense also for that person to be old and male. Check it out and look at the facts. It is all speculation, I suppose, but the story won't go away....and i haven't seen any stories about young naked females showing up in towns under similar circumstances. I mean, Gen was the originator, but I'm talking about those following up... Klondike |
I always thought some enterprising young filmmakers (like perhaps one of the ones that post material here??? ;) ) should go to Vermont and film beautiful women walking around naked in public. Nude in SF is a site that has some great American public nudity stuff (some of it quite bold and they never seem to be hassled). The problem with all those Euro public nudity sites is it almost seems passe now, like no one bats an eye (also I like to know what people are saying, and they're all speaking foreign languages to me). But to have a North American site (is public nudity tolerated in parts of Canada?) would be very appealing to me.
But I would worry if pushing the envelope would lead to legal action. Interesting topic. |
Quote:
In Vermont if you move around a bit, you might be able to pull it off. Just don't stay in any one place - that way no one can mount an offensive against you. Be like a traveling salesman - you know, out the door and on to the next town the moment anyone objects. Then don't splash your pics all over the net - keep it quiet. KLondike |
San Francisco nudity ban
Before today, I didn't know about the nudity ban in San Francisco that takes place on February 1st, 2013. Maybe this has been talked about here at OCC - I don't know.
Anyway, some details would be nice to include in this thread. If anyone lives down there, maybe they have been following whats going on, and can give us (me) more insight. This is pretty big news. I think earlier in this thread I talked about Ashland OR and maybe Brattleboro, VT and how each town enacted nudity bans in response to public nakedness that some felt was getting out of control. Well, it looks to be the same situation in SF. Complaints lodged by citizens will cause officials to act if they are truly being responsible public servants. Its the community standard aspect of what is considered "indecent exposure". Decent exposure can quickly become indecent exposure if enough people complain. So, that seems to have been what happened in SF. Where does one point fingers? Well, from what I have read it was persistent nudity in the Castro District, a problem which was escalating in recent years. So no, its not Bay to Breakers or Folsom Street Fair or other official events. Its random acts of nakedness, and it appears to be primarily gays that were responsible. I do wish gays would take more responsibility for things that they do sometimes - more than one nude beach in the past has been shut down due to gay activity. Anyway, you will still be able to get naked at Bay to Breakers and other events. But down the drain is SF reputation as being a place where you can legally just let it all hang out any time and any place in the city. I don't know how this law will effect the naked protesters activities (Gypsy Taub, etc). But one might think that they are being somewhat targeted by this law. I mean, any political activism in favor of nudity in the city is going to run counter to what the new ordinance is all about. Klondike |
Quote:
|
Interesting aspect of the laws--you don't actually have to be out in public to be guilty of these offenses in some states. If you're in a "private place that may be viewed by the public," you may very well be guilty of public nudity/lewdness.
The way I read that--sex or nudity with the curtains in your house or hotel room open counts as a crime in LA, ME, NE, NJ, NY, OK, and SC. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.