| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KM
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 02/10/2010 : 3:53:58 PM
|
I know that this topic has come up in this forum before (and I myself have actually written about it at length on other naturist forums as well), but I don't think it gets nearly enough attention in the naturist community, so I'd like to discuss it here. The topic, as you can tell by the title of this thread, is taking pictures on nude beaches. I don't mean random pictures of people consensually taking pictures of each other (although, in truth, I think that cameras SHOULD in fact be banned on nude beaches all together if that's what it would take to solve this problem), but people there for the express purpose of taking pictures of people (most often young women -- you know, the demographic naturism struggles with the most), to gather material for adult websites. There are people who literally consider this a "sport."
I have strong reason to think that this issue is a major deterrent to younger people trying nude beaches (and the fact is, the beaches seem to be where many young people get started with naturism -- if you cut that off, you cut off the industry in general, and not many things can survive without such "new blood"). Quite simply, young people have the most to lose by being "discovered" against their will. If discovered by the wrong person, it could potentially ruin his/her career and/or family life, and I doubt too many young people are going to jeopardize their careers and/or family life to go to a nude beach. As I alluded to above, this is especially true with women. For all the men who have trouble getting their wives/girlfriends to go with them to a nude beach, this issue doesn't exactly help. I can assure you that the threat of having their nude picture end up on the Internet isn't exactly a selling point. It's my belief, therefore, that this issue is one of the greatest single threats to naturism in the long-term, especially with ever-improving technology making it increasingly easy for these people to do what they do, and their images increasingly clear.
Now I'm sure some of you would will respond by saying that a nude beach is a public place and therefore there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy." To these people, may I remind you that the public places we're talking about here are public places in which something that is illegal in 99.9% of public space is, in fact, perfectly legal. While nude on a nude beach, we're doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing where we're supposed to be doing it. That is, nude beach are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR NUDITY (that, I think, is the key here). It's not as if we're invading the "clothed world" -- that would truly be "public." Otherwise stated, the laws that apply on a nude beach are ALREADY different from just about all other public places, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with having laws in place that are appropriate for the venue in question. Why SHOULD the law regarding photography be different on a nude beach? Simple. Because photography on a nude beach is subject to abuse to a degree probably unrivaled in any other public place. That’s why. Lastly, remember that nude beaches are usually clearly sanctioned off and out of view from the surrounding area with signs specifically warning people of their presence, unlike just about any other public place. Some people talk as if nude beaches are plopped right down in the middle of Times Square. Not so. By the way, a public restroom or locker room is a public place too. Do you think it's legal to take pictures of people there as well? I'm pretty sure it's not, at least in most states.
So what is the solution? As I said above, I really do think that nude beaches should be designated as "no-camera zones," again, given their ultra-unique nature. But if you think that goes too far, as an alternative, I think that this type of photography should be put in the category of "improper photography" (a real legal term), such as "upskirt" photography and public restroom/locker room photography. Specifically, what I would like to see is groups like AANR and/or TNS lobby for a law stated something like "You may not take pictures without permission of any person in the nude in a public place in which nudity is legal." Then, at least if pictures are taken, they will be illegal images. That way, the adult websites that public these images would be publishing illegal images, which would obviously make it a lot riskier for them. Such a law would not be at all broad (in fact it would be very narrow considering how few public places there are in which nudity is legal), and would protect all legitimate press rights, street photography/photojournalism, etc. Please explain to me what could possibly be controversial about that? Otherwise stated, who would really "suffer" under such a law? That is, how many people have a truly legitimate interest in photographing people nude without their permission? As far as I can tell, only one group -- perverts. And I don’t think that too many people (especially real naturists, I would hope) would be too enthusiastic about standing up for perverts’ rights.
To sum up this admittedly long post, the kind of photography I'm writing about here is objectification at its worst, and therefore completely antithetical to supposed naturist ideals. One way or another, this must stop, especially if, to be blunt, naturism is to have any legitimate credibility as a wholesome family-friendly activity for average everyday people. Believe it or not, wholesome family-friendly activities for average everyday people tend not to be breeding grounds for adult entertainment. The bottom line -- whether or not one has an "expectation of privacy" per se on a beach specifically designated for nudity, one SHOULD have an expectation of not being turned into material for late night entertainment of people around the world.
|
Edited by - KM on 02/10/2010 8:44:55 PM
|
Country:
| Posts: 43 |
|
|
youbetcha
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 8:14:09 PM
|
Well I agree with your assesment of the problem and your suggested solution.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 57 |
 |
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 11:53:25 PM
|
You can't ban all cameras on nude public beaches. It's not going to happen. You shouldn't worry "as much" about the cameras you see....it's the cameras you DON'T see that are the ones usually taking "voyuer" type photos.
We take our camera with us to every nudist venue we visit. We and are friends always take pictures of each other. Many will ask why?
Why do you take pictures of yourselves on any vacation, day trip or outing? Should it make a difference whether we are clothed or not that we don't take pictures to document our vacation.....just like any other?
I happen to watch very closely those around us that I do not know, at the nude beach. Many of us look out for each other and will alert each other if we see someone "sneaking" pictures.
Banning all cameras on a nude beach is like the authorities banning nude beach areas because there a a few people that are ruining it for everyone else.
Focus on the problem...don't shotgun approach this situation for a solution.
|
Edited by - FireProf on 02/10/2010 11:55:19 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
youbetcha
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 01:26:18 AM
|
I think the main solution was to get the law to say pictures taken on nude beaches are illegal to use in any public display (w/o permission is something I would include).
I agree banning all cameras is overkill.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 57 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 03:10:57 AM
|
I really don't understand what the issue is here.
Firstly why should you care? What's so different about being naked? I thought that the whole ethos was that it wasn't important.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 10:58:11 AM
|
I was directed to a site by a nudist friend once. He stated that pictures of nude people (mostly women) were posted on this internet site and they were pictures from the nude beach we frequented with our wives.
I visited the site and found that he was right. All of the pictures seem to be taken from under cover at or just above ground level.
With this info....I began scouting out those suspicious characters sitting around couples or single women and watched their activities. Caught several and ran them off....probably missed several.
I hate going to the beach and being the "beach police." Telling couples or single guys to stop playing with each other or themselves, looking out for cameras, watching people to make sure they behave is tiring and not what I go to the beach to do.
But...I take my wife and I've taken my grown children and grandchildren to this beach and so I remain..."on guard." You can't stop every single "bad person" out there every time. It's just not possible and making laws to stop camera use on public beaches, parks, forests...it's just going to solve the problem.
Being aware of your surroundings and knowing the signs to look for for hidden cameras and then confronting those with the cameras that may be taking "voyuer" type pictures is the way to lessen this activity.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
KM
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 8:40:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
Should it make a difference whether we are clothed or not that we don't take pictures to document our vacation.....just like any other?
Yes, FireProf. Unequivocally yes.
This is where I probably split with many naturists. OF COURSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE! Let me put it this way. If there's no difference between nude and textile locations, why is it that almost all nudist resorts specifically ban cameras (often even cell phones)? Yes, I know they're private properties, and therefore automatically have the right to do so. Put that aside for a second. The point is, even though they have the right to ban cameras on their premises doesn't mean that they have to actually exercise that right. Yet they do. Textile resorts of any kind, whether Club Med or Holiday Inn or whatever, also have the right to ban cameras. Yet as far as I know, they don't. That practice is unique to naturist resorts. Why do you think that is? Are naturist resorts, or the people who go to naturist resorts, anti-human body? Quite the opposite. But what it comes down to is, just like what I'm saying about nude beaches, the potential for abuse. The people who run the resorts are in touch with reality enough recognize that when people are nude, the potential for abuse of photography rights is WAY above and beyond that when people are clothed. By the way, if nude locations are the same as textile locations, why is it that nudist resorts often do background checks on potential members, while textile locations, I'm pretty sure, rarely do so? Again, they recognize that the unique nature of naturism renders it highly subject to abuse.
Anyway, as youbetcha pointed out, I proposed an alternative to the banning of cameras on nude beaches that involved the banning of the publication of such images without consent. But let me ask you something. Yes, in a perfect world, we could have it all -- the good photography without the bad. But what if we can't? What if the only way to truly deal with this problem was to ban cameras on nude beaches all together? Would you be willing to forgo your use of cameras on nude beaches if you knew it meant greater comfort to others on the beach, and even more importantly, greater appeal to those who are currently considering giving it a try but so far unwilling to do so? If your answer is "no," with all due respect, that kind of hints of selfishness. Naturists like to bill themselves as the friendliest people in the world. For that to be true, I think that they should, in fact, be selfLESS enough to go a few hours without their camera if it were to support the well being of others, especially naturism's more vulnerable members.
quote:
Originally posted by McNigel
I really don't understand what the issue is here.
Ummmm, how about the fact that people's livelihoods could be ruined by this type of thing? Does that help explain it? Honestly, I'm sorry, but I don't understand how anyone could not understand this.
Seriously, McNigel, a lot of the same responses I gave to FireProf apply here too. But there are some things I'd like to add. First of all, here's a real quote from a young woman from another forum on which I brought up this issue.
"I have never been to [a particular nude beach -- I won't disclose which here] for this reason. The 'fear' of what others think of me unclothed does not bother me in the least. It is the reality of my picture being plastered on the WORLD WIDE web withOUT my knowledge or consent, that makes me fearful of going. A 'discovered' picture by a current or potential future employer could cost one his or her career."
Do you find this unreasonable? Is she anti-human body? Does here attitude make her a traitor to the nudism "ethos?"
By the way, this particular woman aside, until this issue is dealt with a LOT better than it is now, please don't talk about how great naturism is for women (which, no, I am not myself, by the way). Why do you think you see so relatively few women on nude beaches? Have you ever considered the possibility that as it stands now, nude beaches are an extremely hostile place for them? That is, women are being brutally exploited on nude beaches, and they know it. That’s why they stay away (or at least one significant reason).
quote:
Originally posted by McNigel
I thought that the whole ethos was that it wasn't important.
I thought that another part of the ethos was that naturism is NOT about seeing and being seen, which really means not about voyeurism and exhibitionism respectively. Just because someone wants to enjoy a natural setting the most natural way does NOT mean that, as I said in my past post, someone wants to be (or is in any way okay with being) material for the late night entertainment of people of people around the world.
I'll put it this way. I'm about to say something most naturists probably never say (another way I split with many naturists, I suppose). Some parts of the human body are, as a result of evolution, more sexually attractive than others and meant to entice, and they're the parts you see on a nude beach but generally not elsewhere. Whoa! What an admission! But seriously, my take on that you're on a nude beach, in that natural setting in which people are enjoying recreation, SOMEHOW that effect is offset. It's kind of hard to put into words, but I hope that most of you can relate to this. Now, when people are sitting there at home in front of their computer and THEN looking at those same parts, that context is lost. Honestly, McNigel, what do you think people are doing as they're looking at these images? Feeling the thrill of people (usually young women, oddly enough) enjoying nature? Come on. You know exactly what they're doing as they're looking at the images. It would be naive to think otherwise. Is THAT part of the "whole ethos?"
I'll wrap up (yes, another monster post, but I think it warrants it) with two overarching thoughts, and then two relevant quotes.
1. Naturism is great. But it is highly subject to abuse. Its vulnerability to abuse does not detract from its greatness, but it does mean that the potential for abuse has to be dealt with in order to make sure it doesn't come to fruition. Too many naturists have their head in the sand when it comes to the potential for abuse naturism carries. So naturism suffers.
2. It's always stunning to me that a movement that struggles so greatly to bring in new members, particularly younger ones, is so reluctant to take steps to make them comfortable.
Quote 1: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
-unknown
Quote 2: "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
|
Edited by - KM on 02/11/2010 8:43:45 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 43 |
|
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 9:09:58 PM
|
First....you've taken my statement way outta context.
I really don't care much about what others think about our taking pictures of each other and our friends. We take pictures on ALL our trips and nude ones aren't any different to US but they are, apparently, to you.
We have every right to take pictures of each other and our friends and we make every effort to ensure NO ONE else is in our frame.
You've obviously had a problem or bad experience with this issue and now.....ALL cameras at nude venues are bad and everyone with a camera is a voyeur.....that's is NOT true.
The biggest problem is with those cameras you DON'T SEE....not ALWAYS with the ones out in the open!
You're mixing up two different venues....beaches and clubs/resorts. Most nude beaches are public. Those that are private or part of a resort/or club fall under a different category.
Public nude beaches are PUBLIC. Private resorts/or clubs and those that have their own private beaches are very well within their rights to have rules concerning cameras. We've visited many of these and with the permission of staff or management....we've been able to take our pictures.
And....how do you propose to get this law to ban cameras on nude beaches? We have a hard enough time keeping our nude beaches....now you want laws/ordinances to ban cameras? How bout we get more nude beaches and police the voyuers outta our nude beaches!
An analogy can be used to sum it up by using a similar analogy used by many of those use about guns...guns don't kill..it's the person holding the gun.....cameras aren't the bad person....it's the "bad person" behind the camera!
BTW....I don't like guns!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
KM
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2010 : 10:47:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
You've obviously had a problem or bad experience with this issue.
Not true. Yet. But sure, it's something I worry about. But more importantly, it's something I'm very aware of, and something that I KNOW keeps people away. And I have the crazy belief that people shouldn't have to be intimidated out of going to a nude beach out of fear of the repercussions.
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
Those that are private or part of a resort/or club fall under a different category.
I specifically addressed that. I'll quote myself here:
"Yes, I know they're private properties, and therefore automatically have the right to do so. Put that aside for a second. The point is, even though they have the right to ban cameras on their premises doesn't mean that they have to actually exercise that right. Yet they do. Textile resorts of any kind, whether Club Med or Holiday Inn or whatever, also have the right to ban cameras. Yet as far as I know, they don't."
My point, therefore, was simply that if nude and textile locations are basically one and the same, nudist resorts wouldn't FEEL THE NEED to ban cameras anymore than textile ones do, even thought they can. Within the scope of this point, the right or lack thereof to ban cameras is immaterial.
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
Public nude beaches are PUBLIC.
Again, I addressed that at length -- this time in my first post. Please reread the third paragraph of that post. But I'll ask this. Do you REALLY not see a difference between a nude beach and your average everyday public place, even in terms of the laws that apply there? And I guess you think people should be able to take pictures in public restrooms as well? Because they're public places too (hence the term "public restroom").
It is exactly this failure of many naturists to differentiate nude beaches from other public places and to come to grips with the realities those differences entail that I am critical of.
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
And....how do you propose to get this law to ban cameras on nude beaches? We have a hard enough time keeping our nude beaches....now you want laws/ordinances to ban cameras?
1. Many things are already banned on nude beaches. At one I know of, anyway, kites are banned. So are glass bottles and floatation devices. You ban cameras the same way you ban those items. Yeah, okay, a camera can be used more discretely than a kite. But you can usually tell.
2. Ordinances to ban cameras might also keep some of the undesirables who serve as a detriment to nude beaches away from the beach. You know, make them "less pervy," I guess you could say. It might also encourage people who would be no trouble whatsoever who are now staying away to instead show up. So, to put it in very basic terms, you might replace some "bad" people who currently show up with some "good" people who are currently staying away.
3. The best model for this, as far as I know, would probably be Tambaba Beach in Brazil.
Hope that answers your questions.
|
Edited by - KM on 02/11/2010 11:11:19 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 43 |
|
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 12:35:35 AM
|
Laws and ordinances don't keep the "bad" guys away....they only affect the law abiding citizens.
The "bad" guys are still gonna have their cameras at nude beaches taking the pictures you are afraid they are going to take.
Hey... we could go on forever and we probably aren't going to change our opinions so....
Good luck with your attempt to ban cameras at nude beaches. Hope we have some left (nude beaches) for your idea to work.
FP
|
Edited by - FireProf on 02/12/2010 01:09:12 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
youbetcha
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 02:06:19 AM
|
Ok, I'm trying to think of what is wrong with flotation devices and kites. Do they draw unwanted attention to the area and the people or what? Just curious.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 57 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 04:18:23 AM
|
Private clubs will have their own rules and if you feel the need for restrictions then that's the place for you.
On a public beach you are there for everybody to see and that's the deal. Whatever you chose to wear or not, you are putting yourself on view to anybody who cares to look. Why should you care if somebody takes a photo? It's only a record of an actual scene.
I can't think of anybody being harmed by a photograph of them on a beach.
Maybe this is a more European perspective.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
KM
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 6:50:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by youbetcha
Oh, who knows? Maybe they're worried that they could fall on people and annoy them or something. But I'll tell you this -- most people on a nude beach would much rather see a father and son flying a kite together than a guy with a camera. Same with floatation devices.
quote:
Originally posted by FireProf
The "bad" guys are still gonna have their cameras at nude beaches taking the pictures you are afraid they are going to take.
Well, if there's a risk of a substantial fine, the risk/reward profile changes greatly for them. All of the sudden, the money they might get from these websites would likely pale in comparison to what they would have to pay if they got caught? Do you really not think that would be a deterrent?
But really, I'm kind of sorry that this discussion has taken this turn. Remember, my proposed solution was the a law banning the publication of images taken on nude beaches WITHOUT PERMISSION, which is quite different. It's just that if that doesn't work, then I think the next step would have to be a ban on cameras all together. My point was that somehow or another, the way it is now can't go on. But getting back to the publication without permission idea, would THAT be a problem for you? I certainly can't see why.
By the way, I'm going to PM you something -- look out for it. But now I have bigger fish to fry, name McNigel.
quote:
Originally posted by McNigel
Private clubs will have their own rules and if you feel the need for restrictions then that's the place for you.
On a public beach you are there for everybody to see and that's the deal. Whatever you chose to wear or not, you are putting yourself on view to anybody who cares to look. Why should you care if somebody takes a photo? It's only a record of an actual scene.
You continue to miss the point! Please answer these questions. Putting aside their ability to do so, WHY is it that naturist resorts ban photography on their premises whereas textile resorts do not? Are you still saying that having cameras around when people are nude is NOT highly subject to abuse, and the resorts are just being stupid? Or do you concede that having cameras around when people are nude IS highly subject to abuse, but that the abuse should still be allowed to go on anyway simply because it's officially a public place? By the way, out of curiosity, do you also believe that taking photos without permission of nude children on a nude beach is okay too?
Now I have several more thoughts and questions for you.
1. It's interesting that you completely ignored my challenge to your "ethos" comment.
2. What do you mean by "everyone to see"? The only people who can see you on a nude beach are the people who are there too, which is often not many people. In other words, if they see you, they're there too. Furthermore, you pretty much know who else is there and can see you (as you can see them with your own eyes), and can even leave if it's someone you rather not have see you, for whatever reason. Once a picture is taken and put online, though, that control is lost. In other words, it's not UNTIL the picture is taken and published that "everyone" can see you. That comment is badly off the mark.
3. So you assume that if people on a nude beach can see someone, that person is okay with the whole world seeing him/her? Then, again, why are people who go to nudist resorts not okay with the whole world seeing them? Just as on a nude beach, people, including strangers, are seeing them nude. Do you really think that the determining factor in whether a person who is seen by others in a certain location is also okay with being seen by the rest of the world is whether or not the other people seeing them had to pay to get into that location? Because really, that's the only difference between being seen by strangers in a public space versus a private space.
4. Do you also not understand why people, usually women, don't want to be stared/gawked at on a nude beach since they're on a public place? Because taking and publishing pictures of people on a nude beach is basically "staring on steroids," you could say. That is, what taking and publishing pictures does is increase EXPONENTIALLY the amount of time people can spend staring at someone, and even worse, the number of people who can stare at them. It's amazing to me how naturists could make such a big stink over staring but then be so passive about the photography issue. So it's okay to stare, as long as it's through the lens of a camera, and then let thousands of other people stare at the picture on their computers? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
5. Your comment basically says "don't go to a nude beach unless you're willing to pay the price." As I've alluded to before, one line naturists like to use is that naturists are the "nicest people you'll ever meet." Well, what screams niceness more than that sentiment?
6. So I guess you would be okay with someone taking a picture of you using a urinal in PUBLIC restroom and putting that picture on the Internet, right? Because remember, you're in a public place there too AND the picture would be nothing but a "record of an actual scene." Just want to make sure you're consistent. Plus, by the way, even if they're a record of an actual scene, they're still taken out of the context for which they were intended.
7. While researching this issue, I came across this post from a photography forum: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=28978662 . It's about a man caught covertly taking pictures of a woman at Hippie Hollow, a nude beach in Austin, Texas. Anyway, the author even says that "most people would say its fine to ban this type of photography." Although he's worried that it would spill over into banning types of photography, but that's a discussion for another time. And at least one of the responders also says a nude beach isn't really a public place in the usual sense. And this is on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum! I would bet that the general public would be even more adamant about that. The point is, it's interesting (and sad) that non-naturists are more supportive of naturists' rights than naturists themselves.
8. This is going to be rough, but I feel like it needs to be said. McNigel, when you think about naturism's unpopularity in most of the world, you need to understand that fanatics like you ARE part of the problem. And again, there strikes me as something truly mean-spirited and heartless about your words, which, again, contradicts the whole "nicest people you'll ever meet" line. How could you be so uncaring toward your fellow naturists, especially the more vulnerable ones whom we struggle to attract? I just don't get it. Lastly,
quote:
Originally posted by McNigel
Maybe this is a more European perspective.
Actually, I saw an article not too long ago -- I wish I could find it now but unfortunately I can't -- that nude beaches and toplessness in Europe are on the decline, and it specifically mentioned the photo issue as one of the main suspected culprits. Apparently you're out of touch with Europe as well. Guess European women don't particularly appreciate being used as porn either! Strange, huh?
|
Edited by - KM on 02/13/2010 12:47:30 AM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 43 |
|
|
|
McNigel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 7:06:21 PM
|
I'm a fanatic, who's uncaring and out of touch with Europe?
That was quite some rant.
It was only stating an opinion that many don't see photography as a threat, or even an annoyance, because they couldn't care less.
|
|
Country: United Kingdom
| Posts: 132 |
|
|
|
KM
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 7:47:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by McNigel
I'm a fanatic, who's uncaring and out of touch with Europe?
That was quite some rant.
It was only stating an opinion that many don't see photography as a threat, or even an annoyance, because they couldn't care less.
Yes, yes, and yes. Unabashedly so.
Actually, McNigel, please believe that there are many others things I would LIKE to call you, but don't think that this forum is an appropriate place for that. Furthermore, there are several things that I SUSPECT you are, if you know what I mean, and I'll leave it at that.
As for your statement that many don't see photography as a threat, again, I guess that's why most naturist resorts ban cameras, while almost no textile resorts do. Right. Naturists loooooooooove being photographed and published. And you call what I wrote a rant, but quite frankly, your "points" are so asinine and can be attacked on so many levels that it's kind of hard to resist.
Lastly, to anyone else reading this, let it be known that McNigel never really responds to any of the points I make or the questions I pose to him, but instead just responds with his same talking points. I wonder why.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 43 |
|
|
|
Bill Bowser
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 8:16:20 PM
|
Although it is possible for a local government to enact an ordinance prohibiting photography of people using a clothing-optional public beach it would probably be impractical and counter-productive to naturists.
Let's assume that such an ordinance was enacted, how would you expect it would be enforced? Surely you don't think there would be a police officer assigned to arrest the offenders. Without some authority present to make arrests the beachgoers would have to confront the miscreant, which could be problematic. It's my understanding they wouldn't be able to make a citizen's arrest unless the violation was a felony, which is improbable. They would have to call the local police to come deal with the problem. It seems to me that after this occurred a few times the local authorities would declare the clothing-optional beach a public nuisance, and close it. If nude recreation facilities are a source of problems for the local government the naturists will quickly lose what little support they had. This is an issue that we naturists will have to solve for ourselves.
It is almost always true that if you expect someone else to solve your problems you're going to be waiting a long time, and you're going to be disappointed with the results.
Bill in Cincinnati
Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.
|
Edited by - Bill Bowser on 02/12/2010 8:17:49 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 345 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Photography Abuse on Nude Beaches
