Laws About Nudism [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

Sanslines

01-14-2008, 03:36 PM

From: religioustolerance.org

Laws about Nudism:

United States:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">Federal law: No federal US federal law that either allows or prohibits nudity. The courts have not ruled whether the right to engage in naturism is guaranteed by the Constitution under its freedom of expression provision. Thus, the legality of various forms of undress is currently left up to the individual states and localities to decide. Nudity is generally allowed in some areas of some national parks, unless local laws have overriding jurisdiction.

In 1981 (Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65-66), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on nudity, as it appears in movies, plays and TV. They found that: "Entertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected; motion pictures, programs broadcast by radio and television, and live entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works, fall within the First Amendment guarantee ... Nor may an entertainment program be prohibited solely because it displays the nude human figure. 'Nudity alone' does not place otherwise protected material outside the mantle of the First Amendment." This might be interpreted as protecting a naturist's right to engage in a nude demonstration or public performance on a beach. But the ruling does not appear to cover simple nudism.

A photograph of nudists might be considered an innocent picture by some people, an erotic photo by others, and pornography by still others. U.S. law restricts, and in some cases criminalizes, child pornography. Included are books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes. Child pornography is carefully defined in federal law as "any visual depiction, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct." <SUB>4</SUB>
</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">State laws: In Alabama, a law is on the books which prohibits lobbying in behalf of nudism. It is clearly unconstitutional and could not withstand a court challenge. The law is not being enforced at this time.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">Local laws: A referendum in Newport, Maine, was conduced at the time of the 1998-NOV-3 elections. It would have asked selectmen in the city to ban the display of "female breasts ... visible from a public way." The proposal was defeated. The vote was triggered by complaints about a resident mowing her lawn while topless.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Canada: Two federal laws (Section 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code) apply across the country.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">Section 173 prohibits "indecent acts" done either: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">in a public place, or</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">in any place, if done with the intent to "insult or offend"</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>It also forbids "exposure of genital organs" for a "sexual purpose" to someone under the age of 14. As is common Canadian practice, Parliament leaves the exact definition of these terms up to courts to decide. Various Provincial courts have decided that:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">simple nude sunbathing is not indecent.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">streaking is not prohibited under the law.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">the inside of a car can be a public place if it is viewable from the street.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">the doorway of a home can be a public place.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=baseline width=42>http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top width="100%">Section 174 prohibits being "so clad as to offend against public decency or order" while exposed to public view. Courts have decided that nude swimming is not within the range of this law. This section seems to have been used mainly against nude and semi-nude performances in commercial establishments.

Efforts to restrict Naturism:

The Naturist Education Foundation wrote:
"Two years ago NEF produced a video, 'Baring the Threat', in which the threat of the radical religious right to Naturism was explored. At that time groups like the 'Christian Coalition,' 'American Family Association' and others were attempting to impose their morals on all North Americans by securing whatever government seats they could acquire...Although these radical groups have a broad agenda for controlling America's politics and morals, they are focusing attacks on what would seem to be a minor issue: mere nudity.
The Naturist Action Committee (NAC) stated: "When the religious right failed to stir up enough community outrage over something as simple and familiar as skinny-dipping, they took a new tack -- radical extremists claimed that family Naturism is a form of child abuse. NAC has been tracking this trend in state legislatures and the courts for over six years now..."<SUB>1</SUB>As of 1997-FEB, the NAC was "actively lobbying against bills...[including] restrictions or outright bans on nudity in more than two dozen state legislatures throughout the United States...Our opposition...the radical right...is well funded and well organized as a citizen lobby with the goal of putting a thousand such laws in place by the year 2000.
By the end of 1998, the Naturist Action Committee had identified legislation in 40 U.S. states, the Virgin Islands and Canada that would stop or impede nude recreation. <SUB>2</SUB>

Some municipal, county, and state legislation limiting public nudity is aimed at controlling behavior in topless bars, XXX rated pornography, etc. However, unless carefully worded, it can limit the freedom of naturists to be nude in wilderness areas, in private nudist resorts and even in their own homes. A common approach among some state legislators is to introduce a bill to tackle what is perceived to be a social problem. Then they word the bill so inclusively as to criminalize naturist activities at private resorts, and topless beach wear, thong bathing suits, etc. In some cases, these bills would prohibit nudity even in the privacy of one's home. Since most legislators are lawyers and exhibit at least normal intelligence, it is apparent that such duplicity is intentional. The Naturist Action Committee claims that its "success rate against proposed anti-nudity laws in U.S. state legislatures over the past three years exceeds 94%." <SUB>3 </SUB>They list legislative successes in FL and TX during 1997; in KY & PA during 1998; in MA, MO, & NE during 1999; and in KS & WA so far during 2000. 
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

bare-belly

03-03-2008, 08:32 PM

You may want to look at this...

We all were born naked, without clothing.

It is the clothes that makes people wonder, "What is under?" Of course, clothing is a good thing ... when it is cold )))

And naturism is easier in warm countries...

But even in Finland, at the sauna, they don't imagine doing it with bathing suits... it would destroy the pleasure of feeling the body.

Feeling your body is something natural, not merely a sexual feeling.

Begin to do it in your home when it is hot, stay nude and after doing it,
usually you will see how it is difficult to put clothes back on when going outside...

...Why is it normal that our mind must be free and at the same time our body must be hidden, denied???

Why must we separate ourselves in two different parts?

Why is the body a dirty thing not to show to others? Why even people make love, do so in the dark??? Civilization, laws, religions....

But to deny freedom for the body is a bad thing for civilization:

In the US, a woman showing her breasts on a beach is something very rare; American girls are very shy about that, but it is at the same time the place in the world where the business of pornography and sex is the most important in the world: of course, you "create" the call, the need by "hiding" natural things...
--Isabelle, owner of http://happynature.com/

So we must ask, are clothes part of a solution or cause of a problem?

Bare-Belly

Stu2630

03-04-2008, 11:38 AM

But even in Finland, at the sauna, they don't imagine doing it with bathing suits... it would destroy the pleasure of feeling the body

In Scandinavian countries, it is unusual to enter a sauna wearing anything - but public saunas are almost always single-sex.

More broadly, when considering the relationship of laws and nudity, many nudists think only about the sexual and indecency offences. It should, however, be remembered that the prosecuting authorities may very well not rely upon these, but rather make use of the more vaguely-worded public order offences - the same offences which outlaw aggressive behaviour, obscene language and so on which offend against the public peace.

Responsible nudism should never fall foul of any laws because it is practised with discretion and consideration. Nude activism, on the other hand, shows little care about how others feel and so is far more likely to attract action by the police and penalties from the courts.

Stu

Eric6420

03-04-2008, 01:15 PM

I think the problem with theses laws, at least in Canada, is that they tend to criminilise nudity wherever it is. Of course, nudity is legal in nudists centers, but I mean to get arrested when you are alone on a remote beach is not a pleasant idea even if the probabilities of getting arrested for that are few.

I think one of the last bastion of public nudity in America is men's looker rooms and showers, and even there nudity is not always there.

The spas centers always intrigue me. I mean I do not understand that in most spas, at least in Quebec but I suppose that it is the same accros Canada and the USA, you cannot go in the hot tube in the nude. Maybe it is because theses places have both genders, but the idea to put trunks to go inside the jacuzy is very unpleasant to me.

Agde

03-04-2008, 03:23 PM

Since getting federal rulings seems a long-shot and leaving nudity rules up to variably sized localities produces such an incomprehensible hodge-podge, I got to thinking about what could be a solution.

How about making it even more complex?

The thought is to take localization down to the micro-level where there is actually a possibility to talk to the people potentially affected. For example, in residential areas, nudity permitted if accepted by residents within 200 yards or two contiguous properties, whichever is farther. So if you wanted to settle down with a good book under a tree, just ask the neighbors. Or for longer term permission, just get it in writing. This would prevent some obscure regional rule from leading to unexpected arrest, since true local consensus and practice would trump the regional rule.

Applied to populated non-residential areas, the same principle would apply but to businesses or entities within the range. Obviously it would be considerably more difficult to get such permission given businesses desire to attract customers, but the correct principle would be established for general guidelines to apply only in the absence of a local decision. It would make it possible to walk into a shop across from a park and ask if it was permitted to nude sunbathed awhile, rather than having to find out through an attorney.

It just struck me that the problem is kind of Rousseau-ian in that, if the local decision principle is to apply, rules shouldn't be made and enforced by strangers too distant to actually know you and the specific circumstances. Especially if the broader laws are pitched at the criminal level and could have broad repercussions such as listing in some national sex offender list.

Naturist Mark

03-04-2008, 04:12 PM

From: religioustolerance.org

State laws: In Alabama, a law is on the books which prohibits lobbying in behalf of nudism. It is clearly unconstitutional and could not withstand a court challenge. The law is not being enforced at this time.

Incorrect. The state in question is Arkansas.

Eric6420

03-04-2008, 04:49 PM

I think also that common sense is needed with this issue.

For example, if you have a swimming pool in your background and there is a fence around it, it shoudn't be too much of a problem to swim naked given the fact that people cannot see you from the street and the neighbors are not too close.

On the other hand, do not expect to have permission to be naked on main street exept on very special occasions such as naked bike tours, some photography events...

I think that the focus should be on where nudity is appropriate and where it is not. For example, in Finland nudity is mandatory is saunas like mostly Northern Europe and in Japan at hot springs centers, nudity is also mandatory for bathing and I find that very logical.

It is difficult to predict the future of nudism. In the sixties, there was a trend toward nude beaches and naturists centers, but now the future of nudism looks unpredictable. We do not know if more people will adopt this lifestyle or if it is going to decline.

Sanslines

03-04-2008, 05:07 PM

Source: Nudistlaw.com

Attacks on the Nude, the Naked, the Naturist
by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor

Civil rights now protect minorities of race, religion, and sex, but there is one minority that government is attacking without regard to civil liberties and Constitutional rights: naturists.

Naturism is the philosophy of living in harmony with nature. This includes an affinity and respect for wildlife and the natural environment, an attempt to live a healthy lifestyle with natural foods, and the acceptance of the human body as naturally good and wholesome, hence a rejection of the culture of lust and shame regarding the nude human body. The latter belief by itself is, of course, nudism, the belief that there is nothing wrong with not wearing clothing, and a lifestyle that includes nudity.

The nudist movement has centered on private nudist clubs and resorts, while the naturist movement has focused on nude beaches, springs, and back yards. Both nudism and naturism have been under increasing attack by the so-called "religious right," and laws are being passed nationwide prohibiting nonsexual nudity even inside one's home.

Civil asset forfeiture, the confiscation of property without trial or conviction, is even being proposed as a weapon against the practice of nudity even in enclosed private property. In Arkansas, it is illegal even to advocate in favor of nudism.

Nudity is a prime example of a possibly offensive but victimless state of being. It is not even an activity or act, since it is not behavior, but simply the absence of clothing. The nude and the naked should therefore be protected by civil rights and liberties, including natural rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and private property rights.

Of course, most folks don't want naked people to walk down the street. But anti-nudity laws extend way beyond this to prohibit nudity in one's property and even inside one's own house, and some places make it illegal to be nude in the company of a child even at home. In some place, breast feeding is treated as a crime. Art depicting nonsexual nudity is banned in some places, and many shops that develop film routinely destroy any film that depicts nudity, and if a child is shown nude, no matter how innocent the context, the shop reports it to the authorities.

Even in a liberal city such as Berkeley, California, the law extends to any nudity in "public view," which includes not only nude use of back-yard hot tubs, but even inside one's house if there is a window through which someone could possibly look. One man in Ohio was arrested because someone across the street using binoculars could see him nude inside his house, and in Florida, a child was taken from a woman who was dancing nude in the presence of her child because one could see her by looking up the closed Venetian blinds.

In Berkeley, a recent trial for public nudity ended in a hung jury. The Berkeley police have since then enforced the anti-nudity law as an infraction, like a traffic ticket. Unlike felony and misdemeanor cases, infractions are fines that cannot be tried by a jury. A court case on April 13 resulted in a dismissal of the charges, because the Berkeley law was enacted as a misdemeanor. The Berkeley City council is now considering whether to change the law to make it an infraction. This would be a bad precedent, since the policy of infractions could be used to stifle any protests and free speech and the freedom of movement and association by fining it without any jury trials.

Nudity has already been used as an excuse for governments and private parties to shut down nudist camps and resorts as a real- estate grab. A private nudist resort in Los Angeles fought the government for years against those trying to grab the property, and in Virginia, a nudist camp was opposed by Madison County and finally shut down. Madison has a totalitarian law making it illegal to do anything the government has not declared legal!

In Tennessee, a law has been proposed allowing a group of ten people to declare skinny dipping a nuisance and have it halted. In Kentucky, nudist clubs and resorts must register with the government, and the government refuses to register them, thus effectively banning nudism. In many states, anti-nudity laws have been passed on the basis of outlawing pornography and commercial nude dancing and performances, but the language of the law has also banned the practice of nudism by families at home or in social naturist clubs.

In Alabama and Florida, bills to apply RICO - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization - laws have been introduced to eliminate naturism. RICO allows the government to confiscate property that is only indirectly used in an offense. Hence, if you drive a nudist to a nude beach, your car can then be confiscated. Not only that, but people who file complaints against nudists are allowed to win penalties of up to $40,000 upon conviction. With this bounty, zealous anti-nudists and those who are just greedy can get rich seeking out skinny-dippers.

In California, another weapon in the war against nudity is being considered. The California Senate is considering SB 1859, a "local option" law that would let local governments determine their own "community standards," replacing the current state-wide standard. Naturist and nudist publications depicting nudity in a non-sexual context, or even a photo of one's naked baby in a bathtub, could be classified as obscene by the local standard. Electronic communications and web sites showing non-sexual nudity, such as people at a nude beach, would become criminal in that locality.

Such laws are being pushed and passed throughout the United States because most folks are not nudists or naturists, and think it does not affect them. But these laws are not only unjust to nudists and naturists, but set terrible precedents against free expression and private property rights. Anti-nudity legislation is a foot in the door to the suppression of all our rights and liberties.

Eric6420

03-04-2008, 08:44 PM

Very good article, Sanslines,

I did not know that things were going that bad in the USA for nudists.

eaglepeakpete

03-06-2008, 04:53 AM

Thank god I dont live in America.

It seems nudity is illegal but needless violence in films etc is accepted in fact the more killings the better.

Most people are nude at sometime, I wonder how many go around killing, blowing up and savagely murdering people. So money is the key films make huge profits so thats allowed.

Stu2630

03-06-2008, 09:18 AM

Sanslines

03-06-2008, 09:34 AM

The laws, rules, regulations, and total and complete opposition to ANY for of nudity ANYWHERE is so overwhelmingly large and strong that the nudists are but a faint voice that has little, if any effect, to overthrow the oppression and discrimination inflicted upon then.

HaroldTheNudist

03-06-2008, 12:00 PM

This is why balance is important - a balance of rights.

I'm sorry to see nudism under attack in the US by the "religious right". Responsible nudism hurts no-one and it is an appalling attack on personal freedom to deny nudists places to practise. I find it unbelievable that they even try to legislate against nudism in one's own home! Personally, I think nudity in one's back yard should also not generally attract the attention of the authorities, and they should only step in where the nudity is done indiscreetly and in a way likely to antagonise.

The balance of rights I was talking about is the balance between the rights of nudists to enjoy nudism unmolested and the rights of non-nudists not to be confronted by nakedness. The religious right are one extreme: public nudity activists are the other. Both should be rejected by reasonable people.

Stu

Stu

nudists are not an accepted minority. neither are swingers or recreational drug users. because of that we have no voice and cannot change any laws. we even have a hard time getting acceptance. we cant get open places even if behind gates to practice nudism, or open sex, or drug use unless its on private property hidden away. then we can do what we want.

just the way it is.

Harry