|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| LarryK1052 |
Posted - 07/22/2007 : 5:21:25 PM
How much nakedness should there be? As a nudist I love and enjoy being naked as much as I can. Opportunities, of course, have to work around textile world laws and what is culturally acceptable. It would be great to be able to mow the lawn, do yard work, wash the car or just sit out in my yard naked. Of course that is not possible. Even hiking on little used trails is not with out legal risk.
There is nothing wrong with simple nudity, but how far should simple nudity be aloud to go? Let’s say that nudity laws in your state were under review and that there was political support to change them so that simple nudity was not illegal. How would you want the new nudity laws written? How much public nudity should be aloud and what restrictions should be put on it?
Larry in Kentucky |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Balto Bob |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 6:57:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Balto Bob
Brattleboro VT
www.reformer.com/ci_7530996
The earlier link has expired. The town is STILL trying to agree on an ordinance.
This is much worse than the earlier version.
Bob
Have a nice NUDE day !! |
| Balto Bob |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 6:55:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Balto Bob
Brattleboro VT
www.reformer.com/ci_7530996
The earlier link has expired. The town is STILL trying to agree on an ordinance.
This is much worse than the earlier version.
Bob
Have a nice NUDE day !! |
| nudewalker |
Posted - 11/27/2007 : 11:49:32 AM
All we need to do is hope for selective enforcement. There are many laws on the books that are just not enforced, immigration comes to mind. In many areas if the politicians were not pandering to groups for votes I'm sure more serious crime would be investigated and most nudists would be left alone. And notice I said nudists, not flashers or anyone who would be naked for shock value! |
| agde |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 6:31:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Loki
The fundamental premise of allowing nudity is defective, as nudity is properly a civil right, not a legal privilege subject to arbitrary regulation. ... [It] is a serious problem which may effectively impose illegal chilling prior restraint on the actions and speech of many citizens ...
It would be interesting to test the "prior restraint" angle. This would draw a parallel to "reckless driving" or "abusive language" in that nudity would only be restricted if accompanied by specific behavior, ie. "indecent exposure" not just exposure. This is in essence what Spain and Oregon have done -- nudity must involve a sexual element to be regulated.
The standard legal definition of "indecent exposure" could be a starting point: "the crime of revealing one's genitalia to one or more other people in a public place with the intent to shock the unsuspecting viewer and/or to sexually stimulate the exposer." Whenever "indecent exposure" is defined as "revealing one's genitals whenever a reasonable person would or should know that his/her act may be seen by others and is likely to cause affront or alarm," it would be a case of "prior restraint" and hence laws based on this definition would be unconstitutional. This would put the tort squarely on the exposer and his/her "intent", rather than on trying to measure the complainant's "alarm" against competing social norms. Point this out and change the definition.
Working to change basic legal definitions might be exactly the kind of practical thing this topic was looking for. With minimal intervention, it could quietly and effectively decriminalize mere nudity without opening the wider debate on victimless crimes. |
| bear_rabbit |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 02:18:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BareBill
It seems to me that the legislatures have no business enacting laws which criminalize harmless activities. What compelling societal need is served by requiring that people hide certain parts of their bodies from the sight of their neighbors?
On numerous occasions I've encountered news stories of some naked person (usually a guy) being found in a public place who is arrested by the authorities. I can't recall a single case where this individual was accused of doing anything that was otherwise harmful to society, except perhaps being intoxicated. Nudity doesn't seem to pose any particular threat to society, especially when it occurs on one's own property.
I don't really think the world would be a better place if people wandered around in public without any clothes, but society isn't any better off because it prohibits them from doing so. If all the laws preventing public nudity would somehow suddenly be revoked I don't think there would be many people who would take advantage of the situation by parading around town in the nude, but if they did, what difference would it make? Initially there would probably be chaos due to the gawkers, but that would be temporary.
Upon rereading what I've written I think there might be a few societal problems that could be eased by having more public nudity. Consider the exhibitions and flashers; with more public nudity they wouldn't receive the attention they now are paid. So maybe the world would be a better place with more public nudity.
One more thing... I've heard that being nude in public in Oregon is legal. If this is true I can't help but wonder why I never saw any nude people on the streets when I was there a few years ago. It seems that the Oregonians have managed to control the urges to tear off their clothes. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this situation can enlighten us.
Bill
Because there is still one loophole that can make it a federal afence and when covicted of any sexual afence you have to register as a sexafender for life
http://www.nudistlaw.com/ |
| balataf |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 12:24:30 AM
An overworked idea that is worth mentioning in this context: Have enuf nudists move in, take over a town and legally declare clothing forbidden. (It would have to be someplace isolated, and nice and warm all year, tho.) |
| bear_rabbit |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 10:49:56 PM
 Here is a site that might help
http://www.nudistlaw.com/
|
| old hippie |
Posted - 08/14/2007 : 04:36:36 AM
I'm not sure, but I think Bill and Loki are making the same point: it is pointless to pass laws about nudity.
Loki seems to be contending that it is contrary to the US Constitution. Bill contends that such laws are useless.
In either case, it seems we all agree that criminality should be separate from state of dress. If you are robbing the bank, it makes no difference what you are wearing (or not). If you are behaving yourself, again it makes no difference what you are wearing (or not).
The sticking point is, how do we go about making that position official?
Dum vivimus, vivamus! |
| Bill Bowser |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 5:48:41 PM
It seems to me that the legislatures have no business enacting laws which criminalize harmless activities. What compelling societal need is served by requiring that people hide certain parts of their bodies from the sight of their neighbors?
On numerous occasions I've encountered news stories of some naked person (usually a guy) being found in a public place who is arrested by the authorities. I can't recall a single case where this individual was accused of doing anything that was otherwise harmful to society, except perhaps being intoxicated. Nudity doesn't seem to pose any particular threat to society, especially when it occurs on one's own property.
I don't really think the world would be a better place if people wandered around in public without any clothes, but society isn't any better off because it prohibits them from doing so. If all the laws preventing public nudity would somehow suddenly be revoked I don't think there would be many people who would take advantage of the situation by parading around town in the nude, but if they did, what difference would it make? Initially there would probably be chaos due to the gawkers, but that would be temporary.
Upon rereading what I've written I think there might be a few societal problems that could be eased by having more public nudity. Consider the exhibitions and flashers; with more public nudity they wouldn't receive the attention they now are paid. So maybe the world would be a better place with more public nudity.
One more thing... I've heard that being nude in public in Oregon is legal. If this is true I can't help but wonder why I never saw any nude people on the streets when I was there a few years ago. It seems that the Oregonians have managed to control the urges to tear off their clothes. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this situation can enlighten us.
Bill |
| Loki |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 4:01:27 PM
The fundamental premise of allowing nudity is defective, as nudity is properly a civil right, not a legal privilege subject to arbitrary regulation. That's true for many of us under a combination of Constitutional Free Exercise and Incorporation doctrines, neither popular with the Rehnquist black robed lynchmen, and still suspect in the Roberts court despite one costly and tedious case over Hoasca tea religious rituals similar to Native American peyote traditions the Rehnquist court maligned rather than protected in 1990, being instead protected 9-0 under Roberts. For others, Establishment neutrality obligates not legislating restrictions based on Calvinist or similar bigotry and dogma, however prolific in malicious (eg, rabid religious wRong) or subconscious institutionalized forms in which people have been indoctrinated without learning the underlying roots of prejudices.
That leaves claims of nudity being generally illegal specious, as even if restrictive statutes or twisted interpretations of vague ones exist or are enforced, such subordinate law is inherently void, and overdue for being so adjudicated if not first repealed. Use of mercenary thugs with tax funded badges and guns to engage in prolific civil rights deprivation conspiracies based on what is defined as unlawful conduct, but which cannot be found illegal without engaging in Constitutional frauds, is a serious problem which may effectively impose illegal chilling prior restraint on the actions and speech of many citizens, but does not define what is legitimately legal or not. It does raise serious challenges as to how to end such violent crime waves, especially when politicians acting as mob bosses behind them are often reelected.
As to how much nudity "should" there be, any valid answer is an exercise in chaos theory. There should be as much or little as people freely choose, absent the violent crime of oppressive laws or their enforcement, and ideally with a large reduction in the mass psychology pathologies related to surrounding indoctrination of prejudices and social stigma at odds with healthy existence of humans in our diverse society.
The "dress code" of one large pagan campground and retreat center in PA, working on building a large stone circle by mostly manual techniques, would serve as a good model for laws in US localities: "There is none." http://www.4qf.org
Any related law cannot so much as define "nudity" in a neutral manner. Nudists and naturists with any years of experience have likely seen debates over whether one is "nude" when wearing sandals, a towel, sun hat, watch, glasses, etc. That's an unanswerable question beyond subjective personal opinions, whereas legal practice to use Abrahamic dogma as an excuse to focus on select body parts seen as evil from within sectarian religious frameworks not even universal to their own broad family of monotheism fails all Constitutional tests miserably, other than a perverse one of some judges failing to do their legal duties and overturn any related statutes. A proper role for statutory law is to eliminate so much as defining "nudity", but to offer functional process to enforce civil rights protections, whether 42 USC 1983 from the Civil War Reconstruction era attempt to implement the 14th Amendment, state mini-RFRA's, or the kinds of broad mechanisms cited in EEOC regs on religion in 29 CFR 1605.1 but undercut by Rehnquist in Boerne v Flores in 1997 over the Federal RFRA.
In essence, that means "nudity" rights cannot be protected, without holding all mala prohibita (loosely, victimless crime laws) to be by design or de facto effect illegally discriminatory. That would require eliminating most speech codes designed to impose ideological content discrimination, definitions of "indecency" or "lewdness" based on select religions and which many nudists promote even though they're a basis for wrongful restrictions on naturism and nudism, and revolutionary elimination of US |
| old hippie |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 12:13:53 AM
Hmmm, lester, I think I must not have been very clear in my example. It is not the >being on Market Street< that I think should be proscribed, but the "prancing and calling attention" part. If I were to stroll sensibly down the street, just without the discomfort of clothing, I would like that act per se to be tolerable. Not that it is desirable or even good manners - just not illegal. I recognize that such is not the case, but we are discussing what we'd like to see.
Likewise, if I were to stand on my head in the middle of the sidewalk for an entire afternoon, I might get some pitying stares, but it isn't grounds for arrest.
Just contemplating.....
yer humble Old Hippie
Dum vivimus, vivamus! |
| LarryK1052 |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 4:29:12 PM
I want to thank everyone for their input on rewriting nudity laws. I think it's important that nudist know what they want. I think a good starting point is for the law to acknowledge that simple nudity is not illegal. Being seen naked through your windows, your yard, beaches, and hiking trails to list a few obvious places one should be able to be naked.
Larry in Kentucky |
| catbird |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 11:49:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by old hippie
quote:
Originally posted by LarryK1052
I agree that nudity laws need to be changed. My topic is asking how and to what degree. Should people be aloud to go nude in their front yard, should they be able to walk the dog around the block or even take a stroll down town or through the mall? If you found yourself in a position of policy making or the drafting new nudity legislation how would you change public nudity laws?
. As a reasonable starting place for the discussion which I would expect to follow, I might suggest legislation which specifies that the simple condition of nakedness is not illegal. There would have to be an overt and offensive action which would trigger the involvement of law enforcement.
. So, I could mow the lawn nude if I wish (although safety might indicate otherwise), and surely gardening and swimming in my pool (if I had one) would be OK. However, if I were to prance down Market Street clearly inviting attention I could be instructed to desist and go home and behave myself. Failure to comply with that instruction might land me in custody. And of course, anything which directly threatens another person is immediately unacceptable, clothed or not.
. Alas, most attempts to legislate reasonable behavior do not meet with success: too many people are UNreasonable in the application of the law.
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
Old Hippie states it very well, as to the degree of freedom to be allowed. I too covet the freedom to work in my yard nude and swim in my pool (if I had one) nude. Walking down Main Street clearly would be stepping over the line.
Naturally, Lester |
| old hippie |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 01:23:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LarryK1052
I agree that nudity laws need to be changed. My topic is asking how and to what degree. Should people be aloud to go nude in their front yard, should they be able to walk the dog around the block or even take a stroll down town or through the mall? If you found yourself in a position of policy making or the drafting new nudity legislation how would you change public nudity laws?
. As a reasonable starting place for the discussion which I would expect to follow, I might suggest legislation which specifies that the simple condition of nakedness is not illegal. There would have to be an overt and offensive action which would trigger the involvement of law enforcement.
. So, I could mow the lawn nude if I wish (although safety might indicate otherwise), and surely gardening and swimming in my pool (if I had one) would be OK. However, if I were to prance down Market Street clearly inviting attention I could be instructed to desist and go home and behave myself. Failure to comply with that instruction might land me in custody. And of course, anything which directly threatens another person is immediately unacceptable, clothed or not.
. Alas, most attempts to legislate reasonable behavior do not meet with success: too many people are UNreasonable in the application of the law.
Dum vivimus, vivamus! |
| sailawaybob |
Posted - 07/26/2007 : 11:43:27 AM
In Georgia the law states a lewd state of nudity,in reality just being nude isn't being lewd but is apparently seen that way by others,I don't believe its nessessary to walk down a public street nude but I would like to see the laws changed so that your yard is your kingdom and if you are in your yard sunbathing,playing batmitton or mowing the grass it is your yard and that ok,only when it is lewd is when the government should be allowed to get involved,way to much government.... |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
