Nudism in Arkansas!

[Pete Knight]

From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudism) page on nudism, under politics, this was raised on the new BN forum, which is becoming quite lively (Sorry its only accessible to members.).



Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas) has made it illegal for people to advocate nudism under code 5-68-204 section C which states: <dl><dd>"It is unlawful for any:</dd><dd>(1) Person, club, camp, corporation, partnership, association, or organization to advocate, demonstrate, or promote nudism; or</dd><dd>(2) Person to rent, lease, or otherwise permit his or her land, premises, or buildings to be used for the purpose of advocating, demonstrating, or promoting nudism."</dd></dl>Can this be true, please tell me that this is either wrong or out of date, surely this is in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I await your response with bated breath!

Pete Knight

[MJ_KC]

Sad but true. I can't imagine how they can justify trampling the constitution like this.

[NudeTopher]

From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudism) page on nudism, under politics, this was raised on the new BN forum, which is becoming quite lively (Sorry its only accessible to members.).

Can this be true, please tell me that this is either wrong or out of date, surely this is in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I await your response with bated breath!

Pete Knight


Having been to Arkie-saw I can say that it's very easy to get chaffed by the buckle of the bible belt. I was in a bit of a haze on my way there, since it was on a noisy turbo-prop Saab plane. As we approached the Fort Smith Airport I swear the pilot said (or was it my imagination) "...welcome to Fort Smith. Please sent your watches back a good 12 years." :laugh:

Based upon the wording of their anti-nudity law, you couldn't even discuss it's repeal in the state legislature or challange it's constitutionality in court without being in violation of the law. Since this bible-thumpers won't allow the openness and freedom of nuding, I wonder what it is they have to hide?

A preacher/governor from Arkie-Saw is now running in the 'Publican Primary. I can't imagine too many nudists voting for Mike "Cover Your Privates" Huckabee.

[MJ_KC]

Based upon the wording of their anti-nudity law, you couldn't even discuss it's repeal in the state legislature or challange it's constitutionality in court without being in violation of the law.

That is why I do not see how this is constitutional. To not be able to protest the law itself would seem to be a very clear constitutional issue.

I have some relatives who live in northern Arkansas and they make the Beverly Hillbillies look progressive.

[Stu2630]

How can I get to Arkansas? Are there any big cities there? What about jobs for law lecturers? And is real estate reasonably priced?

Sounds like my kinda place!!! :cowboy:

Stu

[Pete Knight]

How can I get to Arkansas? Are there any big cities there? What about jobs for law lecturers? And is real estate reasonably priced?

Sounds like my kinda place!!! :cowboy:

StuStu
Whist you might like the laws prohibiting nudity I just don't think that an atheist heathen like you would fit in there some how.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Pete


Whist you might like the laws prohibiting nudity I just don't think that an atheist heathen like you would fit in there some how.

To quote a somewhat dastardly hero of mine: "Drat, and thrice drat!"

Oh, well, back to the drawing board, Muttley!

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

Can this be true, please tell me that this is either wrong or out of date, surely this is in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America.

That law is clearly and incontrovertibly unconstitutional, which is why you will never see a prosecutor in Arkansas charging anyone under that law (it would quickly be invalidated and the action being charged would be made de-facto legal) - instead they will use the all purpose alternative charge of 'disorderly behavior'.

The Naturist Society and AANR stand ready to defend anyone ever charged under Arkansas' anti-nudism law, should prosecutors ever be foolish enough to invoke it.

Meanwhile the existence of the law makes organized nudism impossible due to the inability to get licenses or insurance for any business that would violate the law, even though the law can't be enforced.

Mission Accomplished.

-Mark

[Stu2630]

Meanwhile the existence of the law makes organized nudism impossible due to the inability to get licenses or insurance for any business that would violate the law, even though the law can't be enforced.

Mission Accomplished.

Unfair! :(

Obviously not all of the US is deserving the title "Land of the Free".

Stu

[David77]

<DT>This is from the Weekly Newsletter of some years ago, http://cgd.best.vwh.net/home/naturism/wnl-0115.htm but still applies.</DT><DT><DT><DT><DT><CENTER></CENTER><DT><CENTER>Nudism and "morals" in Arkansas</CENTER><DD>Arkansas is perhaps the most nudist-unfriendly state in the U. S. Not only is public nudity itself illegal even the practice of nudism on private property is illegal. Here's how the legislature saw the matter in 1957:
such forms of recreation, participation, activities and practices constitute a clear and present danger to the public peace, health, safety and morals of the State of Arkansas. Evidently, "morals" in the State of Arkansas were in a precarious position indeed. And not only that, but even advocating nudism is illegal:
It shall be unlawfull for any person, club, camp, corporation, partnership, association, or organization to advocate, demonstrate, or promote nudism, or for any person to rent, lease, or otherwise permit his land, premises, or buildings to be used for the purpose of advocating, demonstrating, or promoting nudism. There isn't a Federal court anywhere in the country (we hope) that wouldn't recognize this law as a First Amendment violation, but mere technicalities like that don't seem to bother Arkansas officials, such as the Governor, who recently brushed off questions about whether he thought the law should be changed.

This 1957 law was the handiwork of an Arkansas radio evangelist named Braxton Sawyer, who made it his special crusade to rid the country of the evil of nudism. He was active elsewhere in the midwest - went around prodding the local authorities to close nudist camps. He had a few successes, but they didn't last, except for this law in his home state.
</DD>

No one can remember the prohibition on advocating nudism actually being enforced in recent years, and skinny-dippers do enjoy some remote locations, very discreetly. Nevertheless, a general story on nudism that was planned to run in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette turned into an article on the backward state of local law regarding nudism when the facts came to light. Here's a summary (http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=391855221&CONTEXT=907992342.1074266631&hitnum=0) of the story.

The Naturist Actiion Committee has been aware of the situation for some time, and is "quietly working" on it, according to NAC Chairman Bob Morton. A Usenet article (http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=392194780&CONTEXT=907984508.917831722&hitnum=11) by Morton gives more background on how the newspaper story assumed the form that it did. An earlier article (http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=291282241&CONTEXT=907994944.1153040442&hitnum=1) gives part of the text of the law and a little more background.

[HaroldTheNudist]

I don't think the state of Montana is that friendly as well.

Stu, Arkansas is a bible belt state. Former President Bill Clinton was the Governor of the state before he took office.

aside from the law, nudism is socially unacceptable there and the promotion of it could be very harmful to an individual from an employment point of view. Even if you owned a business there, as a pro nudist the lack of favor could work against you.

Harry

[Stu2630]

Harold - thanks for the insight into Arkansas - and Montana.

I suppose in a way it's a good thing to have some states where nudity and nudism is strictly prohibited because there are other states where it is more tolerated. That's rather like the difference between some German states.

I reckon I could put up with the Arkansas Bible-Brigade if they don't mind a born-again atheist in their midst.

I am presently suffering dangerously high blood-pressure :disappointed: and the medication I take isn't working as well. Maybe the rural Arkansas environment and climate, and the guarantee of absolutely no nudity ever, would get it down a bit. ;)

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Harold - thanks for the insight into Arkansas - and Montana.

I suppose in a way it's a good thing to have some states where nudity and nudism is strictly prohibited because there are other states where it is more tolerated. That's rather like the difference between some German states.

I reckon I could put up with the Arkansas Bible-Brigade if they don't mind a born-again atheist in their midst.

I am presently suffering dangerously high blood-pressure :disappointed: and the medication I take isn't working as well. Maybe the rural Arkansas environment and climate, and the guarantee of absolutely no nudity ever, would get it down a bit. ;)

Stu
Well if you took a break from this forum you'd be a lot better, and so would we!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Well if you took a break from this forum you'd be a lot better, and so would we!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete - if you feel like that, put me on "ignore", then you'll never have to read anything I write again, will you? :mad:

Stu

[Zevei]

Well if you took a break from this forum you'd be a lot better, and so would we!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete Knight

I second that emotion. I have Stu on my ignore list so I don't read his thoughts on the entire matter anymore. However since Pete and Stu are both from the UK, I think you need to understand how the laws work in the US. State Legislatures can pass all the idiotic laws that they want, AND THEY HAVE. However, many of the more dumb ones are blatantly unconstitutional. Even a non-lawyer can see that this one is flagrantly unconstitutional.

What one needs is a brave soul to challenge the law, and probably someone from outside the state who would not suffer from social isolation as a result. Of course just because a law is passed does not necessarily mean that it is going to be enforced. Witness Prohibition during the 30s here, which was CONSTITUTIONAL.

There are laws and then there is the prevailing local customs. Sometimes progressive laws will precede the local customs, such as the Civil Rights Laws of the 60s which the South had an awful time reconciling itself with (and apparently still does in some places).
Then there are regressive laws, such as in one of Arkansas' neighbors, Kansas, where a law had been passed PROHIBITING the teaching of evolution in public schools there.

I personally would never consider living in Arkansas or in any state in the Union which is in the interior of the country, for any number of reasons. One of the primary ones would be that I need to be near an ocean and a nice beach.

Fortunately the US is so big and diverse that there is room for all persuasions.
If that's the way the folks in the "bible belt" want to live, well as long as they don't impinge on my freedoms, it's fine with me.

Z

[Walt Iliff]

Well, I think it's a great idea to have a state that has a law prohibiting even the DISCUSSION of nudism. After all, the citizens of such a state must be overwhelmingly pure and moral.....why, even the politicians in that state, representing it, wouldn't even THINK of doing ANYTHING that would even SUGGEST any form of sexual impropriety. Like a married politician having affairs with co workers and such.......hey!! Wait a minute!!

Walt Iliff

[D-TX]

The funny thing is that Arkansas used to have the logo "The Land of Opportunity" on the license plates. I think it's now "The Natural State", but obviously not if you want to go around au-naturel! ;)

Take Care & Enjoy Life Bare,
David

[David77]

My sister lived in Little Rock Arkansas for years. I hated any segregation of races there and anywhere. In the 70ties and 80ties we visited my sister and her husband often and found Little Rock Arkansas to be otherwise nice. (I knew nothing then about nudism in Arkansas).

It is reported to be the "bible belt" but the Unitarian Universalist Church I attended there was well tolerated even though it is extremely liberal and with naturalistic humanists.

[nfstan]

From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudism) page on nudism, under politics, this was raised on the new BN forum, which is becoming quite lively (Sorry its only accessible to members.).

Can this be true, please tell me that this is either wrong or out of date, surely this is in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I await your response with bated breath!

Pete Knight

I'm fairly sure that someone with deep pockets (presumably not a dedicated nudist) could successfully challenge the law on first amendment grounds.

[Bob S.]

From the NAC (http://www.nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/Arkansas_Laws/arkansas_laws.html)

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person, club, camp, corporation, partnership, association, or organization to advocate, demonstrate, or promote nudism, or for any person to rent, lease, or otherwise permit his land, premises, or buildings to be used for the purpose of advocating, demonstrating, or promoting nudism

This part of the law violates every First Amendment Right.

1) Right to Free Speech: Denying the public the right to advocate or demonstrate for something is in clear violation.

2) Right to Press: Promotion of nudism can be considered as a story in a newspaper or TV. No state can declare what they can or cannot advocate save for what is considered obscenity. Nudism does not fall under that umbrella.

3) Freedom of Religion: In a private, screened area, a religion can hold a nude ceremony or rite if they feel the need or want. The govt cannot dictate how they worship, especially the dress code.

4) Right to Peacefully Assemble: While in your residence or private area, the givt cannot dictate the dress code and can only intervene if people on the outside are affected such as loud noise.

5) Right to Petition the Govt: If advocating nudism is not allowed, how can asking for a repeal of the law be legal?

This law is possibly the worst one in the US in terms of the Constitutionality of it. I can't think of any other law in existence that violates all five First Amendment Rights.

Bob S.

[NCguy49]

From the NAC (http://www.nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/Arkansas_Laws/arkansas_laws.html)

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person, club, camp, corporation, partnership, association, or organization to advocate, demonstrate, or promote nudism, or for any person to rent, lease, or otherwise permit his land, premises, or buildings to be used for the purpose of advocating, demonstrating, or promoting nudism

This part of the law violates every First Amendment Right.

1) Right to Free Speech: Denying the public the right to advocate or demonstrate for something is in clear violation.

2) Right to Press: Promotion of nudism can be considered as a story in a newspaper or TV. No state can declare what they can or cannot advocate save for what is considered obscenity. Nudism does not fall under that umbrella.

3) Freedom of Religion: In a private, screened area, a religion can hold a nude ceremony or rite if they feel the need or want. The govt cannot dictate how they worship, especially the dress code.

4) Right to Peacefully Assemble: While in your residence or private area, the givt cannot dictate the dress code and can only intervene if people on the outside are affected such as loud noise.

5) Right to Petition the Govt: If advocating nudism is not allowed, how can asking for a repeal of the law be legal?

This law is possibly the worst one in the US in terms of the Constitutionality of it. I can't think of any other law in existence that violates all five First Amendment Rights.

Bob S.


Quite simply, the world is made up of idiots. A law such as this (and you can substitute nudity with any other word like bubble gum, Harley Davidsons, cowboy hats, whatever) is totally and utterly rediculous(sp). The world sucks and we're just stuck with it.

[MJ_KC]

The irony to this is what the state nickname or motto of Arkansas is.

"The Natural State"

It is absolutely stupid that this is the state motto and they deny the right to do the most natural thing there is. The state of Arkansas has so many places where it would be ideal to be able to go nude and yet we have the most idiotic anti-nudity law in the country as their centerpiece.

[missouriboy]

Bob S.:
5) Right to Petition the Govt: If advocating nudism is not allowed, how can asking for a repeal of the law be legal?Bob, I don't see why you and others continue to insist it's not allowed to lobby for the repeal of this law... here is the reason it isn't disallowed, as written:

Because "asking for a repeal of the law" is NOT THE SAME THING as "advocating nudism".

Any person could be vehemently against nudism, yet still be legitimate in agitating for repeal of this law. Think of Stu2630; he could conceivably press for the repeal of this bad law, and we know he would NEVER advocate nudism.

There is no legal connection between being for or against any given law, and being for or against the subject of that law. That would be like saying to defend a murderer makes the defense attorney guilty of murder, too.

[rone]

I'm embarrassed to say I work for an Arkansas company. The laws and perspective there seem so silly to me. However, things are looking up. I'm retiring on Jan 15, 2008 -- won't have to deal with the company, and won't be spending my retirement $ there, either.

[MJ_KC]

I'm embarrassed to say I work for an Arkansas company. The laws and perspective there seem so silly to me. However, things are looking up. I'm retiring on Jan 15, 2008 -- won't have to deal with the company, and won't be spending my retirement $ there, either.
It is really kind of sad. Northern Arkansas has some really beautiful areas that are very remote and with its hot springs you would think that they would actually be able to promote nude tourism and help out the state's economy.

There is no reason that nudists and non-nudists can't coexist without bothering one another.

[Stu2630]

Any person could be vehemently against nudism, yet still be legitimate in agitating for repeal of this law. Think of Stu2630; he could conceivably press for the repeal of this bad law, and we know he would NEVER advocate nudism.

Missouri - I think you should have some nudist places established in each and every US state, including Arkansas. Yup. I'd want to see the repeal of this dreadful law.


There is no reason that nudists and non-nudists can't coexist without bothering one another.

That's true - so long as they are kept separate. In segregated nudist places, they wouldn't bother each other.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

That's true - so long as they are kept separate. In segregated nudist places, they wouldn't bother each other.
There you go again, making the assumption that there are only two camps in the clothes or no clothes issue, whereas there is a middle ground of 'not phased by nudity' that you completely overlook and far out numbers the nudists and gymnophobes combined.

On that basis I believe there should be little colonies for the gymnophobes to hide their irrational fear away from normal people, they could have special holiday resorts where they can wear special swimming costumes that cover their entire bodies, and have local swim sessions after the rest of us were done using the pools, usually late on a Saturday or Sunday night, and pay extra for the privilege too!

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

There you go again, making the assumption that there are only two camps in the clothes or no clothes issue, whereas there is a middle ground of 'not phased by nudity' that you completely overlook and far out numbers the nudists and gymnophobes combined.

I know you think that, Pete, but I don't believe it is the case. It's just wishful thinking on your part. Most people, not just gymnophobes, don't want to share their beaches with nudists. If they did, clothing-optional beaches would be far more common, possibly even the norm, but they're not.


On that basis I believe there should be little colonies for the gymnophobes to hide their irrational fear away from normal people, they could have special holiday resorts where they can wear special swimming costumes...

You are living in fantasyland, Pete. Try getting naked on a main beach in Bournmouth of Blackpool, Scarborough or Southend, and see how people are not "phased by nudity". Even the Danish nudists, who used to boast that they could go naked on any Danish beach, are now advising their members to stay on "free beachs" or else ensure they keep a good distance away from clothed bathers on beaches.

Fortunately, only a minority of nudists seem to harbour this ridiculous delusion that most people aren't bothered about public nudity. Some of these act on this delusion and end up in all sorts of trouble - like Steve Gough, for example. Such people do far more harm than good to responsible nudism.

Nudism is a minority preference and most people choose to avoid it. Nudists have to live with that and accept that they are going to have to accept a segregated share of public spaces for a very long time to come.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Nudism is a minority preference and most people choose to avoid it. Nudists have to live with that and accept that they are going to have to accept a segregated share of public spaces for a very long time to come.
No I can't accept that, I know from experience that few people are concerned, the ones that are are prudes by proxy, their concern is not for themselves but the little old lady next door who might be offended, the real truth is most aren't and I've seen Steve Gough posing for a photo with some old ladies, they're usually the cheekiest.

Steve Gough walked unmolested through Devon and Cornwall, Somerset, parts of Wales and quite a long way through Shropshire before a dopey wooden top made the first arrest near Oswestry, if he had handled it properly the problem would have gone away, into Cheshire where no arrests were made.

I saw Steve and Melanie in Devon, Monmouthshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, we skinny dipped together and camped nude without incident, that's MY experience, the only thing you can put forward is your irrational fear of nudity.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

No I can't accept that, I know from experience that few people are concerned, the ones that are are prudes by proxy, their concern is not for themselves but the little old lady next door who might be offended, Has it not occurred to you that the "prudes by proxy" are simply using that as an excuse? That, in reality, they really are shocked and disgusted but are afraid of being seen as prudish and uncool, so they say they are concerned about someone else?


Steve Gough walked unmolested through Devon and Cornwall, Somerset, parts of Wales and quite a long way through Shropshire before a dopey wooden top made the first arrest near Oswestry,On his first walk, he got a kicking in Cornwall! By the time of his second walk, he'd become something of a minor celebrity and in the UK that's a licence to do almost anything. Plus he was constantly on the move and stuck mainly to country paths. Anyone he passed may have been repulsed or intimidated by him (and his entourage) - he is a big, tall wild-looking bloke with a beard! So they do what they would do if passing a gang of rowdy youths shouting obscenities at each other and just keep their heads down and let the yobs get on their way.

But you're not a celebrity, Pete, and if you go and get naked in busier places, like on a main beach in Bournemouth or Blackpool, Scarborough or Southend, I think you'll soon find yourself getting well and truly "molested".

We recently had a lady locked up in Sudan for naming a teddy bear Mohammed. People here went nuts! She only got sentenced to 15-days, but politicians, the media and a host of pundits were queuing up to say how disgusting it was that this poor woman was incarcerated for such a harmless act. For me, the really telling thing about the Steve Gough affair is that he is now in a Scottish prison and has spent the best part of two years behind bars for his nudity. If people really weren't bothered about his nudity and thought he was harmless, you would have thought there would be an outcry. The media would be on his case and politicians would be speaking out against his detention. But the truth is nobody gives a stuff. His novelty value has now evaporated and people couldn't care less about him. That's because, deep down, they don't really approve of his behaviour. They were tolerant up to a point but he pushed his luck a bit too far and now many think he's in the best place.

People's attitude to nudity is not logical - I'll grant you that. A person can see nudity in a changing room of a gym or swimming pool and not bat an eyelid. They can watch nudity on a cinema film and entirely approve of it being there as it is relevant to the storyline. But that very same person could object most strongly if someone was sunbathing naked in their local park. They know they're being deeply illogical, possibly hypocritical, but that's how they feel. So they'll complain on behalf of the children or old lady. But the truth is that they are shocked and offended themselves even though they may not admit it.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Has it not occurred to you that the "prudes by proxy" are simply using that as an excuse? That, in reality, they really are shocked and disgusted but are afraid of being seen as prudish and uncool, so they say they are concerned about someone else? Sorry I still don't buy into that theory.


On his first walk, he got a kicking in Cornwall! By the time of his second walk, he'd become something of a minor celebrity and in the UK that's a licence to do almost anything. Plus he was constantly on the move and stuck mainly to country paths. Anyone he passed may have been repulsed or intimidated by him (and his entourage) - he is a big, tall wild-looking bloke with a beard! So they do what they would do if passing a gang of rowdy youths shouting obscenities at each other and just keep their heads down and let the yobs get on their way. Any kind of eccentric or oddball is the target of the mindless classes as you well know.


But you're not a celebrity, Pete, and if you go and get naked in busier places, like on a main beach in Bournemouth or Blackpool, Scarborough or Southend, I think you'll soon find yourself getting well and truly "molested".But I'm not likely to though am I?


We recently had a lady locked up in Sudan for naming a teddy bear Mohammed. People here went nuts! She only got sentenced to 15-days, but politicians, the media and a host of pundits were queuing up to say how disgusting it was that this poor woman was incarcerated for such a harmless act. For me, the really telling thing about the Steve Gough affair is that he is now in a Scottish prison and has spent the best part of two years behind bars for his nudity. If people really weren't bothered about his nudity and thought he was harmless, you would have thought there would be an outcry. The media would be on his case and politicians would be speaking out against his detention. But the truth is nobody gives a stuff. His novelty value has now evaporated and people couldn't care less about him. That's because, deep down, they don't really approve of his behaviour. They were tolerant up to a point but he pushed his luck a bit too far and now many think he's in the best place.
The people didn't put him behind bars, the people representatives did, and they is still wholesale condemnation of this stupidity and waste of taxpayers money, most people would like to have seen Steve finish the walk and go home, what is now happening is a battle of wills, it has nothing to do with justice.



People's attitude to nudity is not logical - I'll grant you that. A person can see nudity in a changing room of a gym or swimming pool and not bat an eyelid. They can watch nudity on a cinema film and entirely approve of it being there as it is relevant to the storyline. But that very same person could object most strongly if someone was sunbathing naked in their local park. They know they're being deeply illogical, possibly hypocritical, but that's how they feel. So they'll complain on behalf of the children or old lady. But the truth is that they are shocked and offended themselves even though they may not admit it.Absolute nonsense, you are writing with YOUR convictions not what is really happening in the world, I still believe (Based on personal experience.) that the vast majority of the people of Britain don't give a stuff about seeing nude people, and most of them are ignorant of the laws on nudity, they phone the police to report a nude person NOT to complain about them. The sad fact is that a nude man is more likely to generate phone calls to the police than a nude woman, take Steve Gough's naked walk, he had more problems whilst walking alone on his first LEJOG than he did on the second, the difference, he had Melanie with him the second time.

The only reason I feel compelled to reply to your posts is to counter the fallacious comments you make, you have mellowed considerably in the years I've seen you posting, but you still try to sell your vision of life on a naturist forum and you're wasting your time but do carry on and enjoy the debate anyway.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Sorry I still don't buy into that theory.

That's because you are seeing things from a nudist perspective. You see people's outward reaction and you think you know what's going on in their heads from that. I recall an incident in which a rugby team were singing obscene songs on a crowded train between London and Wakefield and the guard eventually reported the incident to the transport police. The rugby players were later arrested and couldn't understand why because nobody seemed to mind. But people did mind - they were just reticent about coming forward to complain and were fearful about seeming prudish.


Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> But you're not a celebrity, Pete, and if you go and get naked in busier places, like on a main beach in Bournemouth or Blackpool, Scarborough or Southend, I think you'll soon find yourself getting well and truly "molested". </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
But I'm not likely to though am I?

No, you're not, are you? And ask yourself why you, and other nudists in the UK, don't get naked on main resort beaches if nobody really minds.


The people didn't put him behind bars, the people representatives did, and they is still wholesale condemnation of this stupidity and waste of taxpayers money,

Really? Wholesale condemnation? You mean like MPs battering down ministers' doors outraged at his incarceration and demanding a law change so he would be released? Funny. I missed that. And you mean like the press being outraged and indignant at this appalling waste of public money while this poor chap is simply expressing his right to enjoy his naked state? I seem to have missed that, too. What about all the pundits, social commentators and such like who are only too happy to slag off the establishment and those in authority at every remotely illiberal statement or action - where are they on the Steve Gough issue? Answer - strangely silent!

Steve Gough has been forgotten: you know it and I know it, so let's not pretend otherwise. And the reason he's been forgotten is that, in the final analysis, people really don't want nudity shoved in their faces and so they know he's got what was coming to him.

You and I live on different planets, Pete, or to be more accurate, we mix in different circles. The people I speak to on this - and I do speak to people on this - are independently minded people, educated people who work in law enforcement, the legal profession, the judiciary and legal academia, and they are not afraid to speak their minds. I have yet to meet one who thinks it is OK, or it should be OK, to be naked in public. Compared to many of them, I am a moderate - an apologist for people who behave outrageously because I dared to suggest that there should be more provision made for nudism. Yes, your experiences are different to mine, but that doesn't invalidate either of our perspectives.

British beaches and public places aren't going to be nudist-friendly any time soon and you know that's true. As I see it, you have two ways to improve your lot in society. You could seek to have nudity accepted anywhere and everywhere, which seems to be what Steve Gough and yourself are aiming at. Well, pigs might fly! There are enough of us who are willing to kick up a heck of a fuss at any such suggestion, and there is no sign that the establishment are about to give in to you - quite the opposite - and you are clearly not going to get mass support from the public, as we have seen in the Steve Gough business! Or you can take a more benign approach, respecting the fact that a lot of people are not comfortable around nudity and finding ways of gaining a better share of public lands and facilities to enjoy without impinging on their comfort and sensibilities. Now that you have a good chance of doing if your strategy is right. But with friends like Steve Gough, you don't need any enemies!

Stu

[HaroldTheNudist]

I feel nudist should support Steve Gough. Stu says there are 5% nudists in the UK. well, with a population of 60 million that gives us about 3 million nudists. if every nudist paid even a meager 100 pounds a year, times 3 million, Steve Gough could be employed by the nudist community to promote nudism in public areas. it would be a handsome wage which would help compensate Steve for his prison time, support for his family. Really its the least nudist in the UK could do. I am really amazed someone else hasnt thought of this.

Harry

[Stu2630]

Harry

Steve Gough says he isn't a nudist.

And the way he is behaving, and with the complete lack of interest on the part of the media, politicians etc, it may be a very long time before he gets out.

BTW - if 5% of the UK population are nudists, that means that there are indeed 3 million nudists - but a lot of those will be children - and most will not belong to any nudist organisation. So I don't think there's much chance of raising the sorts of funds you allude to.

Stu

[HaroldTheNudist]

Stu

it doenst matter that Steve isn't a nudist he wants what we want. even if we took a fraction of it, it still beats what Steve earns. I understand he's destitute. a larger idea of have is the NAC hiring Steve to walk around nude and promote nakedness in Arkansas.

Harry

[Bob S.]

Stu:"They know they're being deeply illogical, possibly hypocritical, but that's how they feel."

So laws based on hypocritical thinking are fine?

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Stu:"They know they're being deeply illogical, possibly hypocritical, but that's how they feel."

So laws based on hypocritical thinking are fine?

Bob - you have taken me out of context: I wasn't talking about law-making when I wrote that, I was talking about how people are....


A person can see nudity in a changing room of a gym or swimming pool and not bat an eyelid. They can watch nudity on a cinema film and entirely approve of it being there as it is relevant to the storyline. But that very same person could object most strongly if someone was sunbathing naked in their local park. They know they're being deeply illogical, possibly hypocritical, but that's how they feel.

Laws certainly shouldn't be based upon hypocrisy, but they should certainly take account of how people feel, even if those feelings are based upon something which is not strictly logical. If you think about it - it's not logical to be offended by anything - including public sex, eh, Harold?

Stu

[Cheri]

I wish someone would be a test case in AR as that law is unconstitutional.
Cheri

[Stu2630]

I wish someone would be a test case in AR as that law is unconstitutional.

Suppose they decided that it was perfectly constitutional? And then other states followed their lead?

Be careful what you wish for.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu:"I wasn't talking about law-making when I wrote that, I was talking about how people are...."

You have stated that the laws should be made for how a majority feels. Therefore, if the public has illogical or hypocritical feelings surrounding an issue, then isn't that making laws based on illogical or hypocritical feelings?

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Bob


Therefore, if the public has illogical or hypocritical feelings surrounding an issue, then isn't that making laws based on illogical or hypocritical feelings?

Possibly. But legislators have to take people as they are rather than judging how those law-makers think they should feel. People are not robots and have to be taken as they are.

Remember that there is no logic in experiencing any kind of offence, but that doesn't mean we can't legislate to protect people's sensibilities, whether it is from obscene language, public sex, or nudity.

Stu

[usuallylurk]

It's surprising -- we have a group in the US called the ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union.

While the ACLU has not embraced nudism as a cause, because they've got bigger fish to fry -- I'm amazed that no one has challenged the Arkansas law. It looks like one right up the ACLU's alley.

Of course, they are busy fighting things like certain elements of the patriot act, as well as capital punishment (a concept LOVED by many here in most parts of the United States; thankfully, I'm in Massachusetts where we don't want it).

As a reminder - and I'm not an attorney - BUT -- here in the United States, a state or even the federal government can enact legislation that is totally contradictory or afoul of the United States Constitution.

And the law stays on the books until someone breaks it, is prosecuted, and the defendant then decides to fight the Constitutionality of the law through the court system. It can be expensive, and time consuming.

[redrocksnudist]

So, what if I were reading this post in Arkansas?

would that be illegal?

or maybe I am not in Arkansas, but someone in Arkansas is reading my posts?

am I then an accessory to their crime?

and if Arkansas is the "natural state"

which state is the "au naturel state" ?

i wanna go there :-)

[Bob S.]

Stu:"But legislators have to take people as they are rather than judging how those law-makers think they should feel."

Lawmakers should look to the Constitution and decide whether the laws are in line with that first. Then they should look to assuring that they are not stepping on more toes than they need to when creating laws. How people feel should be last on the list of things they look for save for figuring out what laws to make. Unfortunately, the second thing listed is the one most often ignored, with abandon at times. The third thing listed is actually what the individual legislators feel more than what their constituents feel.

lurk:" While the ACLU has not embraced nudism as a cause..."

lurk, the ACLU has only one cause, protecting the Constitution. They have been on both sides of many groups. I am sure that the ACLU would be happy to take this case if anyone were charged with nudism or wanted to challenge the law otherwise. Of course, NAC would be the first choice since this is right up their alley. Why not go for both?

redrock:" So, what if I were reading this post in Arkansas?"

Reading it is not illegal. Writing a post would probably technically be illegal, however. It would be interesting to know if nudist sites are blocked at public libraries and such public govt areas.


I don't think that making a post outside of Arkansas would be in violation of
any laws unless you were planning a nudist (or nudist as they define it) gathering to take place in Arkansas. But then I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS


Lawmakers should look to the Constitution and decide whether the laws are in line with that first.

OK - that's something which applies to your country. We don't have a written Constitution in the same way you do. We are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights - a piece of international law which has supremacy over our other law - but there is nothing in it which would preclude states from preventing female toplessness or complete nudity.

While I don't live in Arkansas, I do think their law regarding nudism is unfair and illiberal, so in this respect, I agree with the nudists.


How people feel should be last on the list of things they look for save for figuring out what laws to make.

No, I don't agree with that. Lawmakers are people and are acting on behalf of the people. Laws, especially those which regulate public places, should reflect public opinion and public feelings because it's that public who have to use them.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu:"Lawmakers are people and are acting on behalf of the people. Laws, especially those which regulate public places, should reflect public opinion and public feelings because it's that public who have to use them."

When deciding what laws to propose, they are already looking at public sentiment. However, there are more important things to think about than simple public sentiment on an issue.

Questions that need to be asked are why, legally, should this be allowed or not allowed? How disruptive would this be if implemented? Are there better and less intrusive ways to allow/disallow this without a law? How will this affect people on both sides of the issue? How does this mesh with equality for all or other pertinent issues?

Bob S.

[DKirkpatrick]

Actually the Arkansas law has been on the books for many years - like decades or more.

It's one of those laws that everyone agrees is unconstitutional and likely would never be enforced under rational circumstances. However, it likely will never come before a judge because it is a state that doesn't like to revoke laws.

I suppose at some point it may become necessary to challenge but for now, it isn't bothering anyone.

DMK

[Sanslines]

Actually the Arkansas law has been on the books for many years - like decades or more.

It's one of those laws that everyone agrees is unconstitutional and likely would never be enforced under rational circumstances. However, it likely will never come before a judge because it is a state that doesn't like to revoke laws.

I suppose at some point it may become necessary to challenge but for now, it isn't bothering anyone.

DMK

One of the major problems with the legal system is that it does not rescind old and obsolete laws that no longer apply to the current day and age. the legal system just keeps adding more and more laws and we have reached the point where just about anything and everything is illegal. Oh what a paradise it must have been for those who practiced nudism in the 1800's. Why there were NO issues about nudism back then?