public nudity and the law/legal news

[Klondike]

Originally Posted by KarlMalone

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.

I suppose you could do it in Oregon too. HippieGoddess.com shoots models at Kelly Point Park in North Portland which is a public park located within the city limits. I've been to where they shoot and although its never very crowded there, people can walk by at any time. You never see people in the background of any of their shots, though.

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

[Klondike]

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

[crispus]

Originally Posted by Klondike

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

K et al.: Yes, it's been at least alluded to, largely in the "Naked Protesters" thread at the E&V Forum; the latest action is today at noon (see lustfulgoddess.com/post/January8-protest-flier.jpg at Gypsy T's blog mynakedtruth.tv/ -- and one hopes it's not an ominous sign that the picture is not from previous protests but from the Sydney Tunick shoot!). Anyway, the most likely effect is to hamper just-hangin'-out events rather than protests (which often get exempted to avoid countersuits alleging abridgement of freedom of expression) or established fairs/festivals (e.g. FSF, B2B); also, at least one item I read suggested it wouldn't affect nudity at beaches, especially those under the aegis of the feds, such as at Baker Beach's further reaches...

[higgsboson]

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.