Just another of my occasional (?) musings.

I've been researching laws about public nudity, and one thing that's
quite striking is the extent of their absence.

In most jurisdictions, the authorities seem to use laws relating to
offensive, lewd, or obscene conduct. With varying (and I think quite
limited) success where prosecutions are defended.

Which is odd. The situation has existed for a long time, and there's
nothing to stop most legislatures enacting laws that simply criminalise
public nudity. All they need to say is

"It is an offence to be nude in a public place." Penalty $1000

or whatever.

Maybe the truth is that politicians are reluctant to be seen as saying
that the naked body is objectionable.

Sylvia.

From:	swim_n_paddle at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	20 Jan 2005 09:51:30 -0800

> The site I referenced does have some references to favourable
> precedents. Do you any references to the unfavourable ones you
mention?

I'm afraid it's just anecdotal. There was a session at last year's
Eastern Naturist Gathering run by Bob Morton of the NAC, titled "The
state of the law, the law of the states", which was my suggestion
(preen, preen). I'd previously fenced with him a bit over an NAC alert
that they sent out concerning the law regarding indecent exposure in
North Dakota, where the law begins with a line that ought to leave us
out completely, something like, "Whoever for the sake of ual
gratification..." NAC had claimed that this was a law that we need to
worry about, and I'd said if they use that against naturists then
they're misusing it; if some minor judge applied it regardless of the
wording, it would very likely get overturned by a higher court. He said
you can't count on that, that in Kansas they have a similar law and
that it can be and has been used against people who are seen nude in
public, in the absense of any ual conduct. That's when he mentioned
the man who was convicted and didn't appeal because the appeal "would
have cost him $30,000 and his marriage".

You're right to raise the question, but it's easy to gather the state
laws and list them the way the NAC does, and much harder to find all
the court precedents for every state. I've tried to do it for
Massachusetts, and I've found legal books in public libraries (I tried
several, to see if different libraries have the same books, and they
do) but that's a process that has to be repeated for every state. I
think the NAC should encourage people to do it, though, because just
listing the laws doesn't really tell us what might happen in court.

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:23:13 +1100

swim_n_paddle@yahoo.com wrote:

> He said
> you can't count on that, that in Kansas they have a similar law and
> that it can be and has been used against people who are seen nude in
> public, in the absense of any ual conduct. That's when he mentioned
> the man who was convicted and didn't appeal because the appeal "would
> have cost him $30,000 and his marriage".

I think I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that people shouldn't
push these legal boundaries if they're not willing to go the whole mile.

They do the community a disservice by allowing an adverse first instance
judgement to stand. In the course of time, such judgements can take on
the status of settled law that even higher courts are reluctant to
overturn, perferring to leave that to legislatures (which means it never
happens).

Sylvia.

From:	Alan $in Brussels$
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:05:56 +0100

In the message news:41f02141$0$1020$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Sylvia" wrote:
>
> swim_n_paddle@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > He said
> > you can't count on that, that in Kansas they have a similar law and
> > that it can be and has been used against people who are seen nude in
> > public, in the absense of any ual conduct. That's when he mentioned
> > the man who was convicted and didn't appeal because the appeal "would
> > have cost him $30,000 and his marriage".
>
> I think I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that people shouldn't
> push these legal boundaries if they're not willing to go the whole mile.
>
> They do the community a disservice by allowing an adverse first instance
> judgement to stand. In the course of time, such judgements can take on
> the status of settled law that even higher courts are reluctant to
> overturn, perferring to leave that to legislatures (which means it never
> happens).
>
At the risk of getting OT, it may be of interest to report that a serious
Bill specifying in detail the minimum clothing to be worn in public has just
been given its First Reading in a major African country. According to a
local press report (slightly edited):
"A bill to outlaw indecent dressing is on the way to a second reading in the
Senate. It seeks to forbid the wearing of clothes that expose parts of the
body from the knee up to the shoulders, except the hands and forearms.
Senator Titus Olupitan who sponsored the bill wants the prohibition of
"indecent" or "disgusting" bodily exposure in public places. (...)

Even the framing of the bill itself could not avoid the inevitable grey
areas for future problems. It excludes sportsmen and women as well as
artistes from the reach of the proposed law. And it also excludes the venue
of their performances from the bill's definition of a public place. So, what
then is the bill's notion of a public place? It consists of such places as
examination halls, libraries, dining halls, and lecture halls of tertiary
institutions.

From all these, we can foresee the innumerable problems that would follow.
For example, what amount of body exposure constitutes indecent dressing? A
stretchy material that hugs the body tightly even though covers the limbs
all the way up to the neck would surely be more ually provocative than
the one that merely exposes the knees and forearms. Does it mean that ladies
and men can no longer wear shorts? Again, what is the difference between the
artiste involved in a cultural dance to be exempted from the law, and the
private dancer at a house-warming party? Is it the nature of the event or
the venue? Are the Calabar maidens from fattening rooms on display for
public appreciation with their lusciously decorated upper region engaged in
a cultural theatre or indecent dressing?

If the bill passes, it will be one hell of a law that would leave
open-ended discretion to its enforcers. If our experience has taught us
anything at all, it is that the police would turn that discretion into a
veritable tool for extracting money from citizens. The proposed law would
only serve as one more addition to the long list of obsolete and irrelevant
laws with which the police trample upon our liberties.

When all of this is set against the primitive and inhuman punishment
recommended by the bill, we are scandalised by the quality of legislative
thinking that went into it. How can we contemplate a law in this age and
time that recommends public flogging for offenders between the ages of 14
and 18?
(...)"

For the whole story, see eg :
http://allafrica.com/stories/200501140208.html

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

From:	Molly Wilson
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:09:01 -0600

Bill S.....it is sad for the males that women do not rise up and demand
it be legal for women to go topless.....however reality tells us that
women are smarter than men ....while doing nothing their will is being
done ....women control the male perfectly when she has reasons to not
have or at least regulate it......... with him.........it certainly
givea the woman control of the situation.......those are her tools....it
seems you nudist males are the only ones that want women to go topless
and nude......however tha male wins in the end as this arrangement
leaves women in a locked in.... code of conduct...... in order to
conform to what men expect of them.....is is not wonderful that women
are held to a code of conduct but it seems any old male dog coming down
the rd meets womens qualifications ...of ok conduct.....he he
....regards....jonZeee

www.nudisthallofshame.info

From:	Richard C.
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:57:33 -0800

X-No-archive: yes

"Molly Wilson" wrote in message
news:14471-41F1534D-352@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
> Bill S.....it is sad for the males that women do not rise up and demand
> it be legal for women to go topless.....however reality tells us that
> women are smarter than men ....while doing nothing their will is being
> done ....women control the male perfectly when she has reasons to not
> have or at least regulate it......... with him.........it certainly
> givea the woman control of the situation.......those are her tools....it
> seems you nudist males are the only ones that want women to go topless
> and nude......however tha male wins in the end as this arrangement
> leaves women in a locked in.... code of conduct...... in order to
> conform to what men expect of them.....is is not wonderful that women
> are held to a code of conduct but it seems any old male dog coming down
> the rd meets womens qualifications ...of ok conduct.....he he
> ...regards....jonZeee
>
============================
he he
he he he he he
he he he
he he he he he he he he.................

Blithering idiot!
AND AND AND AND AND AND AND an asshole too................................

From:	JD
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:39:43 +1100

Sylvia wrote:

> Just another of my occasional (?) musings.
>
> I've been researching laws about public nudity, and one thing that's
> quite striking is the extent of their absence.
>
> In most jurisdictions, the authorities seem to use laws relating to
> offensive, lewd, or obscene conduct. With varying (and I think quite
> limited) success where prosecutions are defended.
>
> Which is odd. The situation has existed for a long time, and there's
> nothing to stop most legislatures enacting laws that simply criminalise
> public nudity. All they need to say is
>
> "It is an offence to be nude in a public place." Penalty $1000
>
> or whatever.
>
> Maybe the truth is that politicians are reluctant to be seen as saying
> that the naked body is objectionable.
>
> Sylvia.

In your research, have you checked what the laws actually say is required as
far as swimwear is concerned? I seem to remember from my childhood (in NSW)
that the pool I attended had posted a quote from the relevant act that
specifically only applied over the age of twelve. As it also had costume
details that were ludicrous even in the fifties, it is possible (but not
certain) that it has been repealed.
JD

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:02:50 +1100

JD wrote:

> In your research, have you checked what the laws actually say is required as
> far as swimwear is concerned? I seem to remember from my childhood (in NSW)
> that the pool I attended had posted a quote from the relevant act that
> specifically only applied over the age of twelve. As it also had costume
> details that were ludicrous even in the fifties, it is possible (but not
> certain) that it has been repealed.

As far as I can see, the situation now, in NSW, is quite straightforward
(with a caveat - see below).

If you're at one of five beaches listed in the Local Government Act,
then you can be nude.

Otherwise, if the council has errected a sign at a water related area,
requiring a certain mode of dress, then you must comply with the sign.

If there is no such sign, then you can dress as you like, as long as
you're not nude.

Now, the caveat: We don't know exactly what 'nude' means here. It's not
defined by the legislation, and the courts have never been asked to
decide. I suspect that you're only nude if you have no covering for all
of your bottom AND pubic and perineal area, AND chest, regardless of
whether you're male or female. However, the courts _might_ construe it
as meaning exposure of the bottom OR pubic or perineal area, OR, in the
case of a female, the breasts, though that represents a significant
departure from the dictionary meaning of the word. I don't believe
wearing a hat, socks or gloves would help, but I think Floyd has a
different view. As I said, we don't know, and it hasn't be decided by
the courts yet.

Floyd has encouraged me to generate a test case, but I don't see what
would be achieved in practice, given that if the courts construe it in a
way that the Government doesn't like, then the law will be changed
accordingly. So at best I'd get kudos points, and nothing else, and at
worst I'd get a fine.

Sylvia.

From:	E R
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:31:47 -0600

At worst a fine?
Not bad as long as the fine is not huge.
No jail time?

NICB
==============

Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity

Group: rec.nude Date: Tue, Jan 18, 2005, 2:02pm (CST+17) From:
mellissas_1@hotmail.com (Sylvia)
JD wrote:
In your research, have you checked what the laws actually say is
required as far as swimwear is concerned? I seem to remember from my
childhood (in NSW) that the pool I attended had posted a quote from the
relevant act that specifically only applied over the age of twelve. As
it also had costume details that were ludicrous even in the fifties, it
is possible (but not certain) that it has been repealed.
As far as I can see, the situation now, in NSW, is quite straightforward
(with a caveat - see below).
If you're at one of five beaches listed in the Local Government Act,
then you can be nude.
Otherwise, if the council has errected a sign at a water related area,
requiring a certain mode of dress, then you must comply with the sign.
If there is no such sign, then you can dress as you like, as long as
you're not nude.
Now, the caveat: We don't know exactly what 'nude' means here. It's not
defined by the legislation, and the courts have never been asked to
decide. I suspect that you're only nude if you have no covering for all
of your bottom AND pubic and perineal area, AND chest, regardless of
whether you're male or female. However, the courts _might_ construe it
as meaning exposure of the bottom OR pubic or perineal area, OR, in the
case of a female, the breasts, though that represents a significant
departure from the dictionary meaning of the word. I don't believe
wearing a hat, socks or gloves would help, but I think Floyd has a
different view. As I said, we don't know, and it hasn't be decided by
the courts yet.
Floyd has encouraged me to generate a test case, but I don't see what
would be achieved in practice, given that if the courts construe it in a
way that the Government doesn't like, then the law will be changed
accordingly. So at best I'd get kudos points, and nothing else, and at
worst I'd get a fine.
Sylvia.

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:08 +1100

E R wrote:

> At worst a fine?

Provided you're not doing anything that could be construed as offensive
behaviour. You'd be pretty safe in that regard if you're just nude.

The fine can be up to $Au 1100, though what's most likely is that you'd
get a penalty notice for $Au 110.

Sylvia.

From:	Alan $in Brussels$
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:27:10 +0100

In the message news:41ec7c5a$0$16979$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Sylvia" wrote:
>
> JD wrote:
>
> > In your research, have you checked what the laws actually say is
required as
> > far as swimwear is concerned? I seem to remember from my childhood (in
NSW)
> > that the pool I attended had posted a quote from the relevant act that
> > specifically only applied over the age of twelve. As it also had costume
> > details that were ludicrous even in the fifties, it is possible (but not
> > certain) that it has been repealed.
>
> As far as I can see, the situation now, in NSW, is quite straightforward
> (with a caveat - see below).
>
> If you're at one of five beaches listed in the Local Government Act,
> then you can be nude.
>
> Otherwise, if the council has errected a sign at a water related area,
> requiring a certain mode of dress, then you must comply with the sign.
>
> If there is no such sign, then you can dress as you like, as long as
> you're not nude.
>
> Now, the caveat: We don't know exactly what 'nude' means here. It's not
> defined by the legislation, and the courts have never been asked to
> decide. I suspect that you're only nude if you have no covering for all
> of your bottom AND pubic and perineal area, AND chest, regardless of
> whether you're male or female. However, the courts _might_ construe it
> as meaning exposure of the bottom OR pubic or perineal area, OR, in the
> case of a female, the breasts, though that represents a significant
> departure from the dictionary meaning of the word. I don't believe
> wearing a hat, socks or gloves would help, but I think Floyd has a
> different view. As I said, we don't know, and it hasn't be decided by
> the courts yet.
>
> Floyd has encouraged me to generate a test case, but I don't see what
> would be achieved in practice, given that if the courts construe it in a
> way that the Government doesn't like, then the law will be changed
> accordingly. So at best I'd get kudos points, and nothing else, and at
> worst I'd get a fine.
>
ISTM that the second-last paragaph and JD's text (above) largely answer your
original question : the problem that any *precise* definition is liable to
become inappropriate through the evolution of public opinion (as shown, at
least to some extent, by the change of swimwear fashions). Fundamentally,
attitudes to public nudity are *subjective* and there is thus no absolute
criterion by which the boundary between what is 'intolerable' and what is
not can be determined.

If the legal rule is unnecessarily precise where the courts set great store
by precedent, then there is little scope for enforcement practice to evolve
in step with public opinion. Of course, the enforcement practice itself may
be used to delay such evolution, but in any case the legal rule is liable
ultimately to become so archaic that it will itself tend to bring the law
into disrepute, and thus become ineffective.

In other domains, the political process provides the mechanism to ensure
that the legal rules are periodically revised so that they correspond to
enlightened public opinion (hopefully after rational debate). But in this
domain it has been found that this mechanism too often fails to operate
correctly. So the preferred alternative solution is deliberately to avoid
precise definitions (either in texts or by setting too specific precedents).

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels; IANAL)

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:05:19 +1100

Alan (in Brussels) wrote:

> If the legal rule is unnecessarily precise where the courts set great store
> by precedent, then there is little scope for enforcement practice to evolve
> in step with public opinion. Of course, the enforcement practice itself may
> be used to delay such evolution, but in any case the legal rule is liable
> ultimately to become so archaic that it will itself tend to bring the law
> into disrepute, and thus become ineffective.

In the case of public nudity, we seem to have the problem that the very
lack of precision is allowing authorities to use the threat of
prosecution to discourage an activity that courts seem very reluctant to
deem criminal in recreational contexts when given a rare chance to decide.

There seem to be quite a few examples where people have been arrested,
and then either no prosecutions are instigated, or the charges are
dropped before the trial (once the person decides to defend the action,
no doubt). This is a gross abuse of the power of arrest, and could
amount to false imprisonment, which the courts take a dim view of here
in Australia.

Sylvia.

From:	Alan $in Brussels$
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:11:39 +0100

In the message news:41eda43f$0$14721$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Sylvia" wrote:
>
> Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
>
> > If the legal rule is unnecessarily precise where the courts set great
store
> > by precedent, then there is little scope for enforcement practice to
evolve
> > in step with public opinion. Of course, the enforcement practice itself
may
> > be used to delay such evolution, but in any case the legal rule is
liable
> > ultimately to become so archaic that it will itself tend to bring the
law
> > into disrepute, and thus become ineffective.
>
> In the case of public nudity, we seem to have the problem that the very
> lack of precision is allowing authorities to use the threat of
> prosecution to discourage an activity that courts seem very reluctant to
> deem criminal in recreational contexts when given a rare chance to decide.
>
> There seem to be quite a few examples where people have been arrested,
> and then either no prosecutions are instigated, or the charges are
> dropped before the trial (once the person decides to defend the action,
> no doubt). This is a gross abuse of the power of arrest, and could
> amount to false imprisonment, which the courts take a dim view of here
> in Australia.
>
You (Sylvia) are now raising a rather different (but closely related) issue.
Before addressing it, I'd like to correct a minor mistake at the beginning
of my text quoted above; it should read : "If the legal rule is
unnecessarily precise or where the courts set great store by precedent, or
both, then there is..." and mention that as far as I know NO change to the
criminal law occurred when a section of beach in Belgium (at Bredene) was
designated for naked bathing for the frst time a few years ago. I don't
think there was even any change to the local by-laws, but I'm not sure about
that. Certainly the signs displayed at the ends of the section don't quote
any legal reference (such as you might expect to find if there was specific
legislation defining the legal framework).

I presume the problem Sylvia mentions amounts to a divergence in
interpretation between the police and the Courts. To some extent this is
inevitable in an 'adversarial' legal system, where the Courts are neutral
arbiters between the prosecuting authorities and the defendants. And that is
partly why there is - or at least in the UK there used to be, I'm not sure
if there still is - a committee consisting of magistrates and senior police
officers with the job of establishing enforcement policy on such issues in
each police authority's area. Unfortunately, IMHO, the desire to increase
conviction rates by 'streamlining procedures' (eg the new standard 'caution'
requiring immediate disclosure of relevant information, and allowing
evidence of previous convictions) is tending to impede the Courts from
performing their role in balancing the interests of the State against those
of the individual.

In any case, I don't think that embodying greater precision in the
legislation would *on balance* necessarily result in a more rational
enforcement policy; if the prosecuting autorities still wanted to obtain
convictions, they would then find it easier to do so on minor technical
breaches of the provisions, which they would certainly know far better than
the average sunbather.

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:22:10 -0500

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:27:10 +0100, "Alan $in Brussels$"
wrote:

>
>In the message news:41ec7c5a$0$16979$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Sylvia" wrote:
>>
>> JD wrote:
>>
>> > In your research, have you checked what the laws actually say is
>required as
>> > far as swimwear is concerned? I seem to remember from my childhood (in
>NSW)
>> > that the pool I attended had posted a quote from the relevant act that
>> > specifically only applied over the age of twelve. As it also had costume
>> > details that were ludicrous even in the fifties, it is possible (but not
>> > certain) that it has been repealed.
>>
>> As far as I can see, the situation now, in NSW, is quite straightforward
>> (with a caveat - see below).
>>
>> If you're at one of five beaches listed in the Local Government Act,
>> then you can be nude.
>>
>> Otherwise, if the council has errected a sign at a water related area,
>> requiring a certain mode of dress, then you must comply with the sign.
>>
>> If there is no such sign, then you can dress as you like, as long as
>> you're not nude.
>>
>> Now, the caveat: We don't know exactly what 'nude' means here. It's not
>> defined by the legislation, and the courts have never been asked to
>> decide. I suspect that you're only nude if you have no covering for all
>> of your bottom AND pubic and perineal area, AND chest, regardless of
>> whether you're male or female. However, the courts _might_ construe it
>> as meaning exposure of the bottom OR pubic or perineal area, OR, in the
>> case of a female, the breasts, though that represents a significant
>> departure from the dictionary meaning of the word. I don't believe
>> wearing a hat, socks or gloves would help, but I think Floyd has a
>> different view. As I said, we don't know, and it hasn't be decided by
>> the courts yet.
>>
>> Floyd has encouraged me to generate a test case, but I don't see what
>> would be achieved in practice, given that if the courts construe it in a
>> way that the Government doesn't like, then the law will be changed
>> accordingly. So at best I'd get kudos points, and nothing else, and at
>> worst I'd get a fine.
>>
>ISTM that the second-last paragaph and JD's text (above) largely answer your
>original question : the problem that any *precise* definition is liable to
>become inappropriate through the evolution of public opinion (as shown, at
>least to some extent, by the change of swimwear fashions). Fundamentally,
>attitudes to public nudity are *subjective* and there is thus no absolute
>criterion by which the boundary between what is 'intolerable' and what is
>not can be determined.

Precise definitions are often included in the laws themselves.., where
they are felt needed.... This seems to be an effective way of
preventing Webster from deciding our laws for us.

Personally, I do not believe in gray. The English language is
precise. It should be able to handle descriptions of what is meant,
including that which is not meant... When a law is found to be in
error, it needs to be rewritten to eliminate the flaw. There are in
fact provisions within the law to provide for that but they seem to be
ignored... The law was basically written by intelligent people, when
people had higher ideals. But those who dispense it now are not so
bright.., or fair minded either... They have their *own* opinions
about how things should be... That's why there is a need for both
sides of a case to search for decisions that best suit their own
purpose... There is a frickin smorgasbord of 'versions' of law out
there... There is hardly any *sanity* at all...

>If the legal rule is unnecessarily precise where the courts set great store
>by precedent, then there is little scope for enforcement practice to evolve
>in step with public opinion. Of course, the enforcement practice itself may
>be used to delay such evolution, but in any case the legal rule is liable
>ultimately to become so archaic that it will itself tend to bring the law
>into disrepute, and thus become ineffective.

IMHO that is the way it 'used' to be... Things are quickly changing.
IANAL either, but I do have some experience to relate to... The Star
Chamber came to mind earlier this morning. I see many changes being
made to our laws and perceptions about them. Codification is
crumbling... The only question that remains is just how we sheeple
are to be herded...

>In other domains, the political process provides the mechanism to ensure
>that the legal rules are periodically revised so that they correspond to
>enlightened public opinion (hopefully after rational debate). But in this
>domain it has been found that this mechanism too often fails to operate
>correctly. So the preferred alternative solution is deliberately to avoid
>precise definitions (either in texts or by setting too specific precedents).

IOW, we here in the U.S. have little choice but to move to LA...

>Regards,
>
>- Alan (in Brussels; IANAL)

Cheers... :-)

Floyd

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:31:45 +1100

I found this page:

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

You can see why other states would be reluctant to prosecute for mere
nudity except where their laws clearly criminalise it. From the cases in
other states, it's clear there's a good chance they'd lose.

Sylvia.

From:	D. Kirkpatrick
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:17:45 GMT

In article <41ede2b1$0$26013$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Sylvia wrote:

>
> I found this page:
>
> http://www.nudist-resorts.org/statutes.htm
>
> You can see why other states would be reluctant to prosecute for mere
> nudity except where their laws clearly criminalise it. From the cases in
> other states, it's clear there's a good chance they'd lose.
>
> Sylvia.

There is a more comprehensive list at

http://www.naturistsociety.com/nac/

Then click on the statutes and laws page and select by state.

From:	Molly Wilson
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:47:22 -0600

Sylvia....countries like aus and the USA are two or more hundred years
down the road with the Judaeo Christian princles of living a moral
life.....When these countries were founded there was no idea in their
minds that an insane modern western society would ever demonstrate
social communal nudity with both es and kids too......but they must
have said ....if that should happen.... then the ol disorderly conduct
and other lewdness laws will cover it....no further changes will ever be
needed.....regards....jonZeee

www.nudisthallofshame.info

From:	Molly Wilson
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:07:49 -0600

was that your favorite nudist journalist....i bet you havnt seen her
naked yet ...goofus.....so who do you think is gonna win....is the USA
too weak to stand up to the euros....are the euros gonna allow the
swastica to be memorialized....that was on the news today and the EURO
thugs are going to take a closer look.... as it seems germany wants to
ban it by three political parties......yeah that naked jounalist is one
of those tag along nudist gals...that is trying to keep her job....he he
....jonZeee

www.nudisthallofshame.info

From:	Mark
Subject:	Re: Johnz.....you deflect the topic yet again.
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:29:49 GMT

"Molly Wilson" wrote in message
news:12960-41EC6165-210@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> was that your favorite nudist journalist....i bet you havnt seen her
> naked yet ...goofus.....so who do you think is gonna win....is the USA
> too weak to stand up to the euros....are the euros gonna allow the
> swastica to be memorialized....that was on the news today and the EURO
> thugs are going to take a closer look.... as it seems germany wants to
> ban it by three political parties......yeah that naked jounalist is one
> of those tag along nudist gals...that is trying to keep her job....he he
> ...jonZeee

In your own inimitable fashion you purposely have posted a response to an
unrelated topic plus you've managed to go completely OFF topic.....who
mentioned swasticas--and exactly what "nudist journalist" are you referring
to?

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Johnz.....you deflect the topic yet again.
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:17:55 -0500

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:29:49 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

>
>"Molly Wilson" wrote in message
>news:12960-41EC6165-210@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>> was that your favorite nudist journalist....i bet you havnt seen her
>> naked yet ...goofus.....so who do you think is gonna win....is the USA
>> too weak to stand up to the euros....are the euros gonna allow the
>> swastica to be memorialized....that was on the news today and the EURO
>> thugs are going to take a closer look.... as it seems germany wants to
>> ban it by three political parties......yeah that naked jounalist is one
>> of those tag along nudist gals...that is trying to keep her job....he he
>> ...jonZeee
>
>In your own inimitable fashion you purposely have posted a response to an
>unrelated topic plus you've managed to go completely OFF topic.....who
>mentioned swasticas--and exactly what "nudist journalist" are you referring
>to?

Don't make him think too much... It's not good for him.

You see how he's falling apart, don't you? In another post today he
said that someone must prove him wrong, and then he proceeds to say
that I do...? Now he's banging walls with this post and others...?
He's probably responding to someone in an entirely different group
besides. ;->

Let him enjoy his last few days... I had a premonition about that
other post when I read it... That he was 'leaving'... I actually
questioned him on that in my response to him, you know? Now, by
what I'm seeing, I'm pretty sure he'll be dead by February... ;-/

But I don't want to look like I'm 'wanting' that... I'd just as soon
see him in a deep coma... Wouldn't that be nicer? :-)

Floyd

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	Ish Taylor
Subject:	Re: Johnz.....you deflect the topic yet again.
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:09:08 -0600

"Floyd Baker" wrote in message
news:qr2pu0pv921fkmihte1r9ef8vr999lrm4t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:29:49 GMT, "Mark" wrote:
>
> >
> >"Molly Wilson" wrote in message
> >news:12960-41EC6165-210@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> >> was that your favorite nudist journalist....i bet you havnt seen her
> >> naked yet ...goofus.....so who do you think is gonna win....is the USA
> >> too weak to stand up to the euros....are the euros gonna allow the
> >> swastica to be memorialized....that was on the news today and the EURO
> >> thugs are going to take a closer look.... as it seems germany wants to
> >> ban it by three political parties......yeah that naked jounalist is one
> >> of those tag along nudist gals...that is trying to keep her job....he
he
> >> ...jonZeee
> >
> >In your own inimitable fashion you purposely have posted a response to an
> >unrelated topic plus you've managed to go completely OFF topic.....who
> >mentioned swasticas--and exactly what "nudist journalist" are you
referring
> >to?
>
> Don't make him think too much... It's not good for him.
>
> You see how he's falling apart, don't you? In another post today he
> said that someone must prove him wrong, and then he proceeds to say
> that I do...? Now he's banging walls with this post and others...?
> He's probably responding to someone in an entirely different group
> besides. ;->
>
> Let him enjoy his last few days... I had a premonition about that
> other post when I read it... That he was 'leaving'... I actually
> questioned him on that in my response to him, you know? Now, by
> what I'm seeing, I'm pretty sure he'll be dead by February... ;-/
>
> But I don't want to look like I'm 'wanting' that... I'd just as soon
> see him in a deep coma... Wouldn't that be nicer? :-)
>
> Floyd
>
If he died or was in a coma he couldn't post and then who would we laugh at?

From:	Molly Wilson
Subject:	Re: Johnz.....you deflect the topic yet again.
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:02:57 -0600

yeah goofus.....you are slow.....the sports folks in greece having
nudity was your post....and i was pointing out the journalist that wrote
it was in your post...and was rather hesitant to say she supported the
swastika rather she felt all cultural history should be
memorialized......so do you and your journalist support the
swastika.....huh...or does nudity have priority over evil folks
........jonZeee

www.nudisthallofshame.info

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Johnz.....you deflect the topic yet again.
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:22:05 -0500

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:02:57 -0600, mollyewilson@webtv.net (Molly
Wilson) wrote:

>yeah goofus.....you are slow.....the sports folks in greece having
>nudity was your post....and i was pointing out the journalist that wrote
>it was in your post...and was rather hesitant to say she supported the
>swastika rather she felt all cultural history should be
>memorialized......so do you and your journalist support the
>swastika.....huh...or does nudity have priority over evil folks
>.......jonZeee

Ha... According to the wording, they *expect* the law to be shot
down..., in pieces. It will be.

Well.., come to think of it.., it is *Iowa* after all... :-/

But take a look... They say:

Nudity means... the showing of the female breast with less than a
fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.

Ok, so *don't* show the breast. A woman can hide it in a halter or
bra with *just* the nipple exposed... ;->

But it really does show how sick minded these people are, doesn't it?
Fearful that an 'areola' will be seen... That's really pathetic...
Isn't it a shame how some little people will strive to waste their
lives, and everyone else's?

Now...; the Swastika was a religious symbol before Hitler came along.
We have it emblazoned in several places on a tremendous tiled floor
in at least one office building in Buffalo. I've seen it elsewhere
too. You want to give that lunatic meaningful importance in
changing the symbol's 3000 years of historical significance and
meaning 'good'? If it's made the symbol of bad, it will be used by
all such groups in the future, and will *never* stop representing what
is hated...

I don't really care johnz... but I like to argue...

Floyd

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:53:25 -0500

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:45:47 +1100, Sylvia
wrote:

>Just another of my occasional (?) musings.
>
>I've been researching laws about public nudity, and one thing that's
>quite striking is the extent of their absence.
>
>In most jurisdictions, the authorities seem to use laws relating to
>offensive, lewd, or obscene conduct. With varying (and I think quite
>limited) success where prosecutions are defended.
>
>Which is odd. The situation has existed for a long time, and there's
>nothing to stop most legislatures enacting laws that simply criminalise
>public nudity. All they need to say is
>
>"It is an offence to be nude in a public place." Penalty $1000
>
>or whatever.

I though we went over that... ;->

>Maybe the truth is that politicians are reluctant to be seen as saying
>that the naked body is objectionable.

Where did you get the idea that *politicians* had any morals? :-)
It's the courts that keep shooting them down and keeping them honest.

>Sylvia.

Floyd

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:31:59 +1100

Floyd Baker wrote:

> Where did you get the idea that *politicians* had any morals? :-)

Er, nowhere. They do have a keen sense of public mood, though. If a Bill
were to be presented here along the lines I suggested, I'd certainly be
doing my best to get the public to understand that the politicians are
claiming that the voters' bodies are offensive.

The pollies know very well that that sort of attack would be in the air,
and are no doubt keen to stay well away from it.

I just wonder who was asleep in those cases in the US where such
legislation has got through.

Sylvia.

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:01:35 -0500

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:31:59 +1100, Sylvia
wrote:

>Floyd Baker wrote:
>
>> Where did you get the idea that *politicians* had any morals? :-)
>
>Er, nowhere. They do have a keen sense of public mood, though. If a Bill
>were to be presented here along the lines I suggested, I'd certainly be
>doing my best to get the public to understand that the politicians are
>claiming that the voters' bodies are offensive.

Well that's good then. So would I... You know they only go for
what they *think* the public wants. I knew you did... :-)

>>Maybe the truth is that politicians are reluctant to be seen as saying
>>that the naked body is objectionable.

It just *sounded* like you thought there might be a *good* reason that
they were being responsible..., for a change. Ha!

>The pollies know very well that that sort of attack would be in the air,
> and are no doubt keen to stay well away from it.

Yes... The 80 percent is getting through to some... Tours, air
flights, beach usage, money.

>I just wonder who was asleep in those cases in the US where such
>legislation has got through.

I guess we must look to our 'organizations', eh?

>Sylvia.

Floyd

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	El Dorado Hot Springs
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:50:31 GMT

Dear Sylvia,

"Sylvia" wrote in message news:41ec9140$0$11097
> I just wonder who was asleep in those cases in the US where such
> legislation has got through.

Sometimes the bills are "fast tracked" and NOTHING can stop them. Sometimes
we fight them and lose badly. Most often, however, when we know about it
ahead of time, we're able to either have the legislation dropped or modified
enough to protect naturists from being affected.

We have NAC (Naturist Action Committee) and to a lesser extent, the
association to thank for that.

Bill

From:	James Brennan
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:24:21 -0000

Sylvia wrote in news:41ec4e2b$0$4313$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> Just another of my occasional (?) musings.
>
> I've been researching laws about public nudity, and one thing that's
> quite striking is the extent of their absence.
>
> In most jurisdictions, the authorities seem to use laws relating to
> offensive, lewd, or obscene conduct. With varying (and I think quite
> limited) success where prosecutions are defended.
>
> Which is odd. The situation has existed for a long time, and there's
> nothing to stop most legislatures enacting laws that simply criminalise
> public nudity. All they need to say is
>
> "It is an offence to be nude in a public place." Penalty $1000
>
> or whatever.
>
> Maybe the truth is that politicians are reluctant to be seen as saying
> that the naked body is objectionable.
>
> Sylvia.

Well, my enlightened city did in fact pass just such a law:

http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/citycode/0622.pdf

After a court challenge they had to amend it to allow artists and
"serious" performers to do their work without being arrested

From:	AridZonaGal
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	18 Jan 2005 01:06:04 GMT

>Maybe the truth is that politicians are reluctant to be seen as saying
>that the naked body is objectionable.
>
>Sylvia.

Because it is not.
DesertDwellingGal

From:	swim_n_paddle at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	19 Jan 2005 11:15:55 -0800

D. Kirkpatrick wrote:
> There is a more comprehensive list [of state laws] at
>
> http://www.naturistsociety.com/nac/
>
> Then click on the statutes and laws page and select by state.

It's fine as far as it goes, but unfortunately the most important
information can be in the form of court precedents, which NAC doesn't
list or even care to talk about (and I've tried to get Bob Morton to
talk about it, so I know).

The main question is if a state has a law that prohibits "lewd
behavior", as many do, does that mean that nudity is automatically
lewd, or not? As of about 1970, court cases in both California and
Florida established that "nude is not lewd"; unfortunately, those cases
were followed by city and county bylaws against nudity in many places,
and again, you won't find those at the NAC site. And there are some
states where courts have consistently held the opposite of Florida and
California, that nude is lewd, although I'm not sure how many state
supreme courts have definitively ruled that way. Bob did talk about one
case in Kansas where a man was convicted and might have appealed, "But
that would have cost him $30,000 and his marriage".

As you know, Dennis, here in Massachusetts we're still waiting for the
case that'll clarify our own law. (Which by the way, is based on a
statute that's been amended many times over the years, but originally
dates back to 1699. It puts people guilty of "indecent exposure" on a
par with "common railers and brawlers". I'm sure we'd rather plead
guilty than be thrown in with that lot.)

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:18:16 +1100

swim_n_paddle@yahoo.com wrote:

> It's fine as far as it goes, but unfortunately the most important
> information can be in the form of court precedents, which NAC doesn't
> list or even care to talk about (and I've tried to get Bob Morton to
> talk about it, so I know).
>
> The main question is if a state has a law that prohibits "lewd
> behavior", as many do, does that mean that nudity is automatically
> lewd, or not? As of about 1970, court cases in both California and
> Florida established that "nude is not lewd"; unfortunately, those cases
> were followed by city and county bylaws against nudity in many places,
> and again, you won't find those at the NAC site. And there are some
> states where courts have consistently held the opposite of Florida and
> California, that nude is lewd, although I'm not sure how many state
> supreme courts have definitively ruled that way. Bob did talk about one
> case in Kansas where a man was convicted and might have appealed, "But
> that would have cost him $30,000 and his marriage".

The site I referenced does have some references to favourable
precedents. Do you any references to the unfavourable ones you mention?

Even then, the decisions may only relate to a particular set of facts.
For example, they may find that it's lewd to be lying naked on the
beach, but not lewd to be naked on a bicycle (I don't think I could be
lewd on a bicycle if I tried!).

>
> As you know, Dennis, here in Massachusetts we're still waiting for the
> case that'll clarify our own law. (Which by the way, is based on a
> statute that's been amended many times over the years, but originally
> dates back to 1699. It puts people guilty of "indecent exposure" on a
> par with "common railers and brawlers". I'm sure we'd rather plead
> guilty than be thrown in with that lot.)

I assume by that you mean cop a plea to a lesser charge.

Sylvia.

From:	El Dorado Hot Springs
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:37:07 GMT

wrote in message
news:1106162155.491378.50420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> D. Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > There is a more comprehensive list [of state laws] at
> >
> > http://www.naturistsociety.com/nac/
> >
> > Then click on the statutes and laws page and select by state.
>
> It's fine as far as it goes, but unfortunately the most important
> information can be in the form of court precedents, which NAC doesn't
> list or even care to talk about (and I've tried to get Bob Morton to
> talk about it, so I know).
>
> The main question is if a state has a law that prohibits "lewd
> behavior", as many do, does that mean that nudity is automatically
> lewd, or not? As of about 1970, court cases in both California and
> Florida established that "nude is not lewd"; unfortunately, those cases
> were followed by city and county bylaws against nudity in many places,
> and again, you won't find those at the NAC site. And there are some
> states where courts have consistently held the opposite of Florida and
> California, that nude is lewd, although I'm not sure how many state
> supreme courts have definitively ruled that way. Bob did talk about one
> case in Kansas where a man was convicted and might have appealed, "But
> that would have cost him $30,000 and his marriage".
>
> As you know, Dennis, here in Massachusetts we're still waiting for the
> case that'll clarify our own law. (Which by the way, is based on a
> statute that's been amended many times over the years, but originally
> dates back to 1699. It puts people guilty of "indecent exposure" on a
> par with "common railers and brawlers". I'm sure we'd rather plead
> guilty than be thrown in with that lot.)
>

From:	Bill S
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:18:58 -0700

There may be an absence because there hasn't been a need. People are
usually charged with disturbing the peace instead of indecent exposure
because the courts shy away from those charges, because by going through a
trial, a court sets precedence for future cases. If one judge in your
county or state rules a women is not "indecently exposed" by going top-free,
the ruling applies for all people in your county/state, but if the charge is
changed to disturbing the peace, the court stops the nudity but doesn't set
a precedence. Does that make sense? The lawmakers and the judges often
fall back on a catch-all law like disturbing the peace, so they don't have
to enact legislation specifically for public nudity. They don't want to go
there. Equal rights for men and women should allow the exposure of the
female nipple as the law allows for the exposure of the male nipple, right?
But the courts and the prosecutors won't go there, so when women protest and
remove their tops, they aren't charged with indecent exposure, instead it's
disturbing the peace. Some states do not allow girls older than 10 years to
go with out a top, even if they have not yet started to develop. What is
going on? Why do female voters put up with the nonsense?
Bill S in AZ

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Absence of legislation about public nudity
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:53:09 +1100

Bill S wrote:

> There may be an absence because there hasn't been a need. People are
> usually charged with disturbing the peace instead of indecent exposure
> because the courts shy away from those charges, because by going through a
> trial, a court sets precedence for future cases. If one judge in your
> county or state rules a women is not "indecently exposed" by going top-free,
> the ruling applies for all people in your county/state, but if the charge is
> changed to disturbing the peace, the court stops the nudity but doesn't set
> a precedence. Does that make sense?

Courts have no say in which charges are brought - that's for the
prosecutor to decide. I'd have thought there was an equal chance that a
court would throw out the disturbing the peace charge on the simple
ground that the peace had not been disturbed, if the charge is defended.

Though I can easily see how the nice 'plea bargain' system ensures that
someone pleads guilty to disturbing the peace rather than going to trial
for indecent exposure. That said, I have found references to US cases
where the more serious crimes have been defended, and the defendant
found not guilty.

In NSW, we don't have a disturbing the peace offence, as far as I can
see, and the offensive conduct charge is indeed the one used against
people going nude where the authorities consider they shouldn't. People
seem to plead guilty, maybe out of concern that they'll end up in prison
instead of just a fine, if they defend the matter. Of course, it only
takes one...

> The lawmakers and the judges often
> fall back on a catch-all law like disturbing the peace, so they don't have
> to enact legislation specifically for public nudity. They don't want to go
> there.

I agree that it seems that the legislators do not want to go there.

> Equal rights for men and women should allow the exposure of the
> female nipple as the law allows for the exposure of the male nipple, right?
> But the courts and the prosecutors won't go there, so when women protest and
> remove their tops, they aren't charged with indecent exposure, instead it's
> disturbing the peace. Some states do not allow girls older than 10 years to
> go with out a top, even if they have not yet started to develop. What is
> going on? Why do female voters put up with the nonsense?

In one the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, Douglas Adams decribes
a planet populated mainly by people, but ruled by lizards, whom the
people hate. It's an ancient democracy, so why don't the people vote out
the lizards? It's because if you don't vote for a lizard, then the wrong
lizard might get in.

In a democracy, the voters do not in reality have much say in
government. They get to choose between a few distinct sets of policies.
So what do you do? Vote for a set of policies that you generally
disagree with, because it happens to contain a policy of topfreedom for
women? That's arguably shooting yourself in the foot.

Sylvia.