uk/usa law comparisons freerange naturism

[Running Bear]

I think I noticed a major difference in American and British naturism in rural areas. In California, nudists are 100% fully within their rights to be nude on State and Federal land where there is no special expectation of people to be present. For example on 7 mile long San Gorgonio beach 20 miles south of San Francisco, there is a parking lot and about a 2 block radius of the parking lot that is patrolled by the police and textile based. The rest of the beach is clothing-optional. On the hiking trails in rural California, the only justification for complaints from textile wearers is lewd behavior. I have never experienced anything but friendliness from everyone in my nude backpacking and camping days.Nake yoga guy (http://www.gonakedyoga.com)
Regarding freerange naturism (walking in open countryside). I have the honour of you-show-me-yours-and-I will-show-you-mine (blogs) with the Naked yoga guy from San Francisco area. While demonstrating naked yoga on Fisherman's wharf George was charged with an offence. The courts decided that it was legal for him to do so and an offence would only be made if there was lewd behaviour associated. This term lewd is close to our likely to offend however the uk version does not only cover sexual behaviour. As far as I understand it the uk law states that technically nudity is illegal however the courts have failed to obtain a conviction without the added aspect of intent to offend and a person likely to be offended. This law allows us to charge the obvious offenders and the courts have been advised that this law is not designed to be used against genuine naturists I would like to emphasise the statement that the only justification for complaints from textile wearers is lewd behaviour. compared to the UK where likely to offend is a more cover-all term.

[Pete Knight]

As far as I'm aware nudity is not illegal in the UK, there is no law against nudity so by default it is legal, the police however aren't aware of this and make arrests on charges that the CPS feel they cannot carry it through a court, often repealed laws which they find out about after some poor nudist has been dragged off to the police station.
The one that catches most nudists out is 'Breach of the Peace' which is misused, it was enacted to curb violence, another (Which again is abused.) is to get the accused to accept a caution, this is worse because the accused can end up with a criminal record without a trial.

More info on the NUFF (http://nuff.org.uk/factfile/content/category/6/68/72/) web site.

Pete Knight

[David77]

I have always been baffled and amazed by the UK law's prohibition of someone "offending", or "likely to be offended".
There are so many hundreds of ways, such as a person's appearance (dirty clothes, for example) or actions (picking one's nose, for example) in public which might offend or likely to offend soneone else.
Many offensive sights and actions of others are not "crimes" in the USA.
For instance, calling someone a "jackass" may offend someone but it could not get him arrested in the USA - even on the (UK) basis of "likely to offend".

Incidentally, remember the childhood saying,

Sticks and stones can break my bones,
but names will never hurt me!

Many offences do not actually hurt anyone, so there should be no law against mere offence.

Some people, such as my former sister-in-law, become offended many times. Others in the same circumstances, would not be offended.
We merely said, "She gets her feelings hurt easily".

Possibly in the UK, the law would favor such a person from the standpoint of "likely to offend" instead of the "developing a thicker skin" standpoint.

Brits have a reputation of being "super polite", so maybe the law/culture there should be complimented highly.

[Pete Knight]

I have always been baffled and amazed by the UK law's prohibition of someone offending, or "likely to be offended". There are so many hundreds of ways a person's appearance (dirty clothes, for example) or actions (picking one's nose, for example) in public might offend soneone else.
Many offensive sights and actions of others are not "crimes" in the USA.
For instance, calling someone a "jackass" may offend someone but it could not get him arrested in the USA - even on the (UK) basis of "likely to offend".

Incidentally, remember the childhood saying,

Sticks and stones can break my bones,
but names will never hurt me!

Many offences do not actually hurt anyone, so there should be no law against mere offence.

Some people like my former sister-in-law became offended many times. Others in the same circumstances, would not be offended.
We said, "She gets her feelings hurt easily".

Possibly in the UK, the law would tend to be on such a person's side as they might consider the "likely to offend" angle, instead of "developing a thicker skin" philosophy.

Brits have a reputation of being "super polite", so maybe the law/culture there should be complimented highly.

The problem with writing laws is you can never close every loop hole so a system is in place for setting a precedent which is referred to in subsequent cases of a similar nature as in 'Doe Vs Smith' and these can be cited by both plaintiff and defendant.

There is certainly too much ambiguity in the 'offended' or worse still the 'Likely to offend' angles, in cases like this its up to the magistrate or judge to decide, the amazing lack of knowledge in some police officers is startling, and costly to the taxpayer when the prosecuting body (The CPS) decides not to take it to court.

The introduction of the SOA 2003 was supposed to clear away a mass of confusing and out dated laws, but the police often bypass this by using Breach of the Peace or pressuring the detainee to accept a caution, which saves plod lots of paperwork and a court appearance, but its an inappropriate way to deal with innocent nudity. The really big problem is social conditioning, if the policeman thinks nudity=sex then he immediately assumes that some wrong doing is going on.

A change of mindset through education is what we need over here, children growing up believing there is nothing wrong with nudity is the obvious place to start, but their parents shape their minds so should we start with them?

Pete Knight

[FishyDave]

Someone who is suitably well informed should refuse a caution. You can't be forced and should not be coerced into accepting one on the spot.

So the one that bothers me right now is the PND (Penalty Notice for Disorder.) Basically a fine of 50 or 80 quid issued by your friendly bobby acting as both judge and jury. Fortunately, there's no blot on your criminal record attached to these, but you've no right to refuse one and exercising your right to appeal is likely to cost you more in legal fees than you'd cough up just paying the fine. Appealing also carries the risk of a proper criminal conviction, should you meet up with an equally misguided magistrate.

According to NUFF, the police issued PNDs during the clamp-down on nudity in the Ainsdale dunes, so this is really happening out there.

The scary thing about PNDs is that they make law enforcement cheap and cheerful by cutting out the middle man (the legal system.) In cases where it wouldn't have been worth prosecuting in the first place, people will still find themselves with fines. This promises to be the naturist equivalent of the GATSO speed camera.

[Running Bear]

I should have referred to English law and San Francisco law since law is not global Scottish law is different as are State laws. uk and usa was generalised as is offence. The word lewd is not an English word and the courts decision to allow naked yoga without lewd content is a move forward. I will also concede that when I claim nudity is illegal I should have said nudity is not-legal.
I take the attitude that I drive on the road as if I had no right to be there.
I also walk as if I am likely to offend. It is unlikely that if I practice my art in the open countryside where textiles are not evident then providing I take reasonable precautions I am OK. If I am caught a police officer has to ask me to cover-up before charging me and cannot arrest me on sight. The exception is I am carrying out aggravated nudity (ie sexual behaviour/streaking etc)
English laws are designed to be vague to allow judgement and there is always a justification for breaking the laws but you must accept the consequences. I claim that it is reasonable to allow me to walk appropriately dressed (skin) and exercise my right-to-roam without discrimination.
Steve Gough (English naked rambler) was charged in England because it was reasonable to expect that he would offend textiles (walking through towns). He was charged under the Public order act. The idea that nudity is not offensive is a naturist idea.
I claim that I am a Jainist (digambar sect) and nudity is my religion. Is naturism a religion? Both statements are :-)