Mass. Supreme Judicial Court makes ruling

[Ria777]

please read. this story affects me personally, as the defendant in the case mentioned.

Good to know: You can't just dance naked in the middle of Harvard Square without warning people
By adamg - Thu, 04/10/2008 - 3:26pm.

So Lady Godiva had best stay out of the Pit - unless she puts up some fliers first.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a Cambridge woman can face criminal charges for dancing nude in Harvard Square even if she was trying to exercise her First Amendment rights, in this case to protest the commercialization of Christmas, because of a state law banning nudity that "shocks and alarms" people.

Ria Ora was arrested on June 25 (the anti-Christmas?), 2005 on charges of "open and gross lewdness."

A lower court had ruled the arrest unconstitutional. In its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed that people do have a right to take all their clothes down, but only if their displays are not "imposed upon an unsuspecting or unwilling audience" (so strip clubs are OK).

In the court's hearing on the case, the state argued that employees of the kiosk in Harvard Square expressed "shock and alarm" when they called police to report the woman (must've been new employees; who knew there was anything shocking left for Harvard Square?). And when justices asked how Ora's anti-Christmas protest was different from Lady Godiva's political ride, the assistant attorney general arguing the case said the difference was that everybody in the town knew Lady Godiva would be taking her ride and everybody averted their eyes except for that one Peeping Tom.

Watch the oral arguments in the case (requires Windows Media Player, but worth if if only to hear the highest court in the state discussing Lady Godiva).

because I haven't posted ten links yet, I can't directly post a link to the story. if someone could reply to this post and do that, though, you will have my appreciation and thanks.

[Sanslines]

Will this work?

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080410/NEWS0103/480888484/-1/CITNEWS0811

Mass. Supreme Court reinstates lewdness charge against nude dancer
<SCRIPT>document.title = unescape("Mass.%20Supreme%20Court%20reinstates%20lewdness%20 charge%20against%20nude%20dancer") + " - Fosters";</SCRIPT>
Article Date: Thursday, April 10, 2008
BOSTON (AP) _ When Ria Ora danced nude in Harvard Square, she said she was just expressing her opposition to the commercialization of Christmas. A judge agreed, tossing out a lewdness charge against her.

But on Thursday, the state's highest court reinstated the charge. The Supreme Judicial Court found that the state's public nudity law does not violate Ora's First Amendment freedom of expression.

Ora was arrested after she danced nude during an annual protest June 25, 2005 against the commercialization of Christmas.

A judge found that state law completely bans public nudity and therefore violates free speech protections. But the Supreme Judicial Court said it has already limited the ban to nudity imposed upon an unsuspecting or unwilling audience.

The court reversed the judge's dismissal, and sent the case back to the lower court.



<!-- Article.pbo END -->

[Ria777]

yes, I saw the other sites today. I just did a Google search on my name. the first link I posted has a link to the actual video of the case getting decided and another to excerpts from the actual briefing (I think they call it). me versus the state of massachusetts. or, to it another way, the state of massachusetts versus me.

[usuallylurk]

I cannot give legal advice, because I am not an attorney.

BUT -- being a Massachusetts resident, where things are pretty liberal -- I will give you some general advice.

1) Get an attorney if you don't already have one.

2) There are some people on these boards, and within the nudist community who will say "Fight the charge! Carry it on through the courts! Exercise your constitutional rights! Put it in play!"

It is easy for them to say that. They will not be incurring your legal fees. They will not be taking the time out of their lives for a long-term legal fight. And, if you lose in the end, they will not have a lewdness conviction on their record for the rest of their lives -- which goes down as a sex offense, a level one (minor) offense, probably -- but still is on your record.

UPDATE - I viewed the SJC proceedings. They're referring you back, because the judge in the lower court was not specific. Just, know that if you take this as a 1st amendment defense there, if they should bring you back for a trial, remember there may be negative consequences for you.

Also, I would NOT discuss any legal strategies that you or your counsel may intend to use, out here on an open board.

Good luck.
3) Do not expect AANR or TNS to come to your assistance on this. They do have some good people on their side, and they will probably follow your case from the sidelines, but I'd be surprised if they came to your assistance on this. They have limited resources, and cannot be in the position of defending every case because it merely involves nudity.

(Some will say, "hey that's not true, they did do the case of the NY Topfree.." yes, they did, but that was because the women were charged with lewdness in spite of an existing precedent where women could be topless anywhere men could. The case was dropped. "what about the Webb case in Oregon, huh?" TNS got involved only to the point where they objected to her imprisonment on insanity, where a judge thought that nudity = insanity. That could have had massive hits on the naturist community, if nudist activity were deemed to be a mental illness. Ria's case is one of alleged public nudity, and the SJC here has ruled that public nudity is NOT protected by the First Amendment.)


What will probably happen -- based on a WNBR case two years ago in New Hampshire -- a misdemeanor plea to disorderly conduct.... might be something good -- but do so with an attorney's advice.

UPDATE - I viewed the SJC proceedings. if you do go back to trial, know that a 1st Amendment defense can carry negative consequences for you. And I wouldn't discuss any legal strategies that you and your attorney might have on an open board.

Good luck.

[Skinview]

Best of luck with your case Ria. I have long believed that we have the right to public nudity under Amendment IX of the Federal Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The idea was that there is an endless number of things that we have the right to do, which couldn't possibly all be written down. Its where the right to privacy came from. You could bounce that idea off of your lawyer, but the 9th Amendment is rarely used, and I expect that he would think your chance of success would be slim using the 9th Amendment. Judges are a conservative lot, and they probably would not be inclined to create some radical new right. But on the other hand, we got gay marriage in Massachusetts from the State Supreme Court.

[nimrod]

Good luck to you on your case. It is a shame that so many people have such a negitive reaction to nudity. I do see the other side of the coin on this also, it seems that your intentions were to draw attention to yourself and your cause and you used nudity to do it which does not help nudist in their cause of being better accepted. There are some out there that can and may use your case to further ban nudity of any kind, linking someone using nudity for the shock value to all nudist is an easy step to take for some people.

All that I ask is that if you are a nudist, do not say so in a puplic forum, to help prevent people making the link from nudity for shock value and simple nudity.

[Ria777]

@nimrod (again): I have some other thoughts about you said where I could chime in and agree with you. still, I will bite my tongue because of the case upcoming.

[Skinview]

@Skinview (and for that matter anyone else): do you know of any cases of the Ninth Amendment helping out anyone in a public nudity case? don't worry, I won't take what you say as legal advice though I think my lawyer would like to know. thank you.
I don't know of any, and I doubt there are any. Other than the right to privacy, which was applied to recognize a right to use birth control (Griswold), and the later Roe v Wade that recognized a right to have an abortion, I don't know of the 9th Amendment being used for anything. Its an unloved amendment, it seems. I'm not a lawyer, so yeah, listen to your attorney.

[Agde]

Not an American lawyer either, but, although the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that you "can" be prosecuted, I don't see how an "open and gross lewdness" charge would stick or rise to the level of causing "serious negative emotional experience" -- especially in Harvard Square in summertime. Sounds like the lower court can just throw the case out again on the basis of the new criteria rather than the First Amendment. Was there indeed "intent to cause alarm and shock" or were you just being anti-materialistic? (pun intended :) but serious about possibility of arguing lack of lewd intent) Back in the late-60s, nudity was a groovy (and unannounced) pastime of anti-materialistic Harvard flower children.

[nimrod]

Ria, sorry was not trying to lecture. I was just trying to say that there are idiots out there that will link the two and put a negitive spin on nudity and nudist in general. There was a recent post here about a pediphial who claimed to be a nudist, and I am sure you can see where that is a definite negitive for nudity and nudist. I am not saying that what you did is in the same catagory, just how it could look to those who want to ban any form of nudity.

Once again, good luck to you in your case. I do support you and wish that I had some legal advice for you. I think that you recieved poor treatment in this situation and it has gone too far for what you did, in a more open(liberal) enviroment no one would have thought anything of your nudity, and would have been able to focus on the points of your demonstration.

[Ria777]

Back in the late-60s, nudity was a groovy (and unannounced) pastime of anti-materialistic Harvard flower children.

Though this doesn't have to do with this thread, really (need to get ten points up before I can use PM's and URL links), I recommend you all go to Google Video and look for a British documentary television series called Century of the Self, all about (among other things) '60's Utopianism got co-opted, subverted and diverted, in the third episode particularly. I give it my highest recommendation.

[Agde]

Though this doesn't have to do with this thread, ... I recommend you all go to Google Video and look for a British documentary television series called Century of the Self
Amazing documentary! Thanks for the link. The whole theme of the battle between socio-psychological control and personal self-expression, between the "true self" as Freudian sexual beast or a self-actualizing good person trying to make the world a better place still haunts America. Laws still haven't figured out the line between community protection and freedom of expression, between offense and tolerance.

It seems very much to apply to your situation, caught between whether you intended to impose sexuality upon "an unsuspecting or unwilling audience" or merely exercise your right to effectively embody your protest against the commercialization of Christmas to an inattentive audience.

[usuallylurk]

if (I don't know if I will) do any media interviews, I don't know if I plan to describe myself as a naturist. not sure. for starters, I don't like to label myself. I would say more though, as before, I feel reticent to say too much on an open forum before the trial.


And you should probably NOT discuss your case here any further <g>

[Ria777]

I will hold off on it until the next time I speak to my lawyer. more than to solicit legal advice, though I do have close friends (most of them far away), I posted to feel less afraid and alone.

[jon71]

I hope we can help you on that count. You should feel welcome here and among friends.

[Ria777]

better.

around an hour later a friend phoned (one who I had sort of vanished) and we discussed the case.

I found it cathartic. I feel a whole lot better now.

it helps to confront this stuff and not hide. after the shock wore off I hid from the seriousness of it all. not the best thing. best to face up to it and not run away.

[DKirkpatrick]

Please be advised that this date I have sent a private message to Ria suggesting that she or her attorney contact NAC. Contact data has been sent via private message. It appears from some of the postings here that Ria may not have been aware of NAC and its mission.

Not every nudity case is a naturist case as it may not always directly involve naturist rights. In the situation before us this appears to be a free speech case as speculated by many.

The SJC ruling of course raises some interesting propositions.

In so far that the specifics of legal exchanges should remain between the client, attorney and supplemantary informational resources, I have suggested to Ria to be careful about what is posted here and any other public fora. As one may know, 'anything you say can and will be used against you,' and that can sometimes include materials posted to public fora such as this.

Whether NAC can assist, remains to be seen.

While the initial case back in 2005 was learned-of back then, NAC was never contacted for assistance, and only just learned of the appeal and SJC ruling from the messages posted to ClothesFree. It was somewhat serendipitous that I came here to post other materials and found this and related threads.

It would be improper for me to comment further given this is an active defense in progress.

DMK

[Sanslines]

Good Job Dennis! Hope you can help Ria.

[Ria777]

My web searching and, for some reason, not found the NAC. Thank you much, Dennis. I will make use of the information.

[DKirkpatrick]

http://www.naturistaction.org

[Ria777]

a small bit of news: I learned today that I will know my court date in about a month.

[krcNY]

I cannot offer anything but moral support. I wish you well and hope all goes smoothly for you :)

[Agde]

Reminded me to send NAC a contribution. Great to know there is someone knowledgeable to contact when needed.

[Ria777]

thank you for taking to time to say so!

[Ria777]

though this contradicts my earlier news that I would find out my court date in a month, I just (ten minutes ago) found out that I actually will go to trial the Friday after this one, May 9, shortly before my birthday. I will go to trial for a felony charge for public nudity after my arrest three years ago.

I do not know the name of the judge. I have just called my lawyer's office to request that information and should hear back with that information later today.

because I just had the number of my posts re-set back to 5, I can't currently post any links about my post, but for a background,you can Google "Ria Ora".

[Eric6420]

I searched for your case on Google, and I find it quite sad that you could be charged up to three years in jail for a nude dance in a park at Harvard.

If you want my opinion, in a world where over a billion people lack basic things such as food and clean water and could starve to death in the next few years or even months, and where there is plenty of serious crimes such as terrorism, murder, and so on, I mean to call a felony a woman dancing naked in a park is not really reasonnable.

I wish you good luck!

[Ria777]

I just got back from ambushing my attorney at his office and having a impromptu talk with him and it looks more like a case of my trail may begin on May 9. I will come into court on May 9, that much I know. also, it won't exactly take the form of a pre-trial hearing. honestly, I don't understand, though my lawyer obviously does.

I apologize for the overly dramatic post title. like I said, I didn't know any better at the time, based on what his secretary had said to me on the phone.

my attorney did say that no one should contact the judge (I don't know the judge's name anyway), that if you want to help me out you can talk this up in the media and in messageboards in the odd chance that the judge will come across the information and get some sympathy for me.

[Ria777]

I searched for your case on Google, and I find it quite sad that you could be charged up to three years in jail for a nude dance in a park at Harvard.

though Harvard Square does have a park, I actually did it in a area of Harvard Square called the Pit, near the transport station, generally thought of as the center of the square, across from Harvard Yard.

[Naturist4Ever]

I just (ten minutes ago) found out that I actually will go to trial the Friday after this one, May 9, shortly before my birthday. I will go to trial for a felony charge for public nudity after my arrest three years ago.

Links:
- http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523065
- http://www.universalhub.com/node/13954
and many others

Ria, wish you all the best in your case, wish that judges/jury/... may use common sense in the interpretation of applicable law, and we hope all for a positive outcome in which you can put this stress behind you for once and all. GOOD LUCK.
~N4E

[jon71]

I wish you great success with this case. My prayers are with you.

[Ria777]

as I said upthread, things may or may not actually get moving on May 9. we will see. thank you all the same, guys. I feel relaxed and optimistic about this, actually, in large part because Bob Morton suggested that I do that. so I have decided to take his advice.

Universal Hub has two posts on the case. the earlier one has video footage of the Supreme Judicial Court hearing which may interest some of you to see, as well as links to the text of the actual statements.

[xLOUx]

Wish you the best and hope they can find a little humanity to open their minds and understand that nude does not equals lewd.

Wish you the best and my prayers are also with you!

Best wishes,
Lou

[Ria777]

thank you, Lou!

[Skinview]

Nudity is a felony? This is insane.

[nimrod]

Nudity is a felony? This is insane.

I agree, it is insanity. And good luck to you Ria, I really hope it works out for you.

[Ria777]

@nimrod, thank you!

@Skinview, thank you, too. I noticed you come from Massachusetts.

[Ria777]

this weekend I mainly celebrated my birthday and I forgot to update this thread.

so it happened that at my court date I had something scheduled for the morning of June 6.

what this something means, whether the start of an actual trial or something else, I don't know. when I get home later today I will check my messages and/or contact my lawyer to find out more about what will and/or could happen.

[Ria777]

in my last post I mis-typed.

I have my next court date scheduled for June 6. without giving away more than I should, I don't think much of anything will happen on that date. I will post as to what happens after it has happened, though.

[Ria777]

very short update:

nothing much got decided today. back in on June 20 when I won't go to court, though I will go to the courthouse. to the courthouse for what, I don't yet know. it will happen on the 15th floor, not the 13th, where trials happen. my lawyer will later tell me what this means.

longer update:

my lawyer introduced another motion to dismiss lewd and lascivious. that got denied.

I ended up silently crying through his statement and that of the prosecutor. (so far, every time I have come into court, I have ended up crying.) Steve and Caroline showed up for me, for which I have not enough thanks.

the same prosecutor from before showed up this time. I would like to say a little more, however I don't think my lawyer would like to reveal more.

some time between now and June 20 I guess I will meet up with my lawyer (who has an office just ten minutes walk from me) to confer.

contrary to how it may seem, I don't feel a lot of anguish right at the moment.

[Ria777]

today went as follows:

it went like this: we asked a clerk about dismissing the second charge, namely indecent exposure. mainly because it could look unless you looked into it that I got arrested once in 2005 and then three years later for another charge, even though both charges have to do with the same event. she said she would wait until the judge's decision.

meanwhile, the judge has not decided whether or not to dismiss the original charge.

looks like if he does dismiss the original charge the clerk will permit the second charge.

so to sum up, I have two charges: lewd and lascivious, filed in 2005, which the judge may dismiss. I will know June 27 what happens with this. (note: in my previous post I incorrectly said the judge had decided not to dismiss this time.)

-- the indecent exposure charge, which the clerk decided to still allow, filed in 2008, though it refers to the original arrest.

[nimrod]

Thanks Ria, keep us posted.

[Skinview]

This whole process is punative. Thats the power cops have. They can put you through hell whether they win or not. I can't imagine what it is costing you.

[Ria777]

sorry, everybody, I made an e-mail mail-out and didn't manage to post here, except for another post on the forum.

so, I did go in to court yesterday and nothing happened. the judge still hasn't formally made a decision. I will go in again on July 25.

in the meantime, on June 25, the third anniversary of my arrest, the "Freedom Watch" column in a local paper, the Boston Phoenix covered the case and chastised the state for wasting money on prosecuting me. by a coincidence, the cover of that issue of the Phoenix had to with free speech.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/63885-Naked-in-the-public-square/

I thanked the columnists for writing the article and told them that I would keep them informed of any new developments.

Sunday, tomorrow, from 7 to 7:30 Eastern Standard Time, I will appear on a talk show to discuss my case. it will stream live over the internet.

http://cctvcambridge.org/webstream

if that works. however, you can also call the show at 617-876-0055.

[Ria777]

@Skinview, I accept my current situation. I endure it and hope for the best. circumstances, mainly the bad stuff I have gone through in my life (I have not had an easy life) have made me strong.

[Ria777]

a quick update. I went to court on July 25. because my lawyer couldn't appear with me (he had another case that day), my case got moved up to August 4.

also, as far as the CCTV show, we changed the topic of the show a half an hour prior to air time, so as to not affect the outcome of my case. so, apart from a few minutes at the start, we didn't touch on the topic of the trial.

[Ria777]

another quick update, pardon about the delay.

the judge will finally, for real, etc., etc., make a statement as to whether or not to dismiss the lewd and lascivious charges on August 19. as a reminder, I now have additional charges for indecent exposure. for now, though, looks like August 19 will have some importance to the trial.

my intuition tells me that the judge's statement won't get delayed again, this time.

[nimrod]

Well good luck with the judge, waiting is the hardest part. The wife had some legal problems and it was a relief when it was all over.

[Ria777]

thanks, Nimrod. I would say more, but I have decided to not give the prosecution (if they read this thread) any clues as to what I think right now, so that they can use that against me. I will PM you, though, shortly.

[Ria777]

update: the judge decided not to dismiss the felony charge. I will come back into court on September 10.

as far as my emotional state, I went through shame and agony at the worst possible outcome (and I won't know if that has happened until the conclusion of the case), so at least for now I have gotten over it.

to my surprise, it does come as a relief to know either way, which I wouldn't have predicted. will update you all on September 10. in the mean time, feel free to ask me whatever questions you may have, if have any.

[Pete Knight]

All I can say is good luck and thanks for being the test case to prove that simple nudity is NOT “open and gross lewdness.”

I hope you're being supported by NAC or some such organisation.

Thanks again.

Pete Knight

[usuallylurk]

All I can say is good luck and thanks for being the test case to prove that simple nudity is NOT “open and gross lewdness.”

I hope you're being supported by NAC or some such organisation.

Thanks again.

Pete Knight

Unfortunately, it may not be so easy. Neither NAC or the AANR legal folks have ever historically embraced the concept of nudity in Harvard Square at high noon.

While I don't know too much about Ria's case, most of these things are gotten around by copping a plea of disorderly conduct. That results in a fine, no jail time, it's not a felony, and it has no sex offender stigma.

While some on the sidelines might argue "Stay the course"... "Fight it out"... "stick to your guns"....."use this to make a change".... it's not their future being put in jeopardy, it's Ria's.

We had a similar incident with two guys who were participating in the world naked bike ride, in '06 or '07, I forget, but in New Hampshire. The two (and that's all there were) were arrested. While some were willing to stand on the sidelines and cheer them on through a legal fight -- the most expedient and most practical way out was to offer to plead no contest to disorderly conduct, tell the judge "@#$%! I didn't know what I was thinking, your honor" -- and pay the fine and not have a criminal record.

The problem with "sticking to one's guns" in such a case is that the person who puts himself / herself on the line may lose. While it makes interesting theatre for the rest of us, a person could end up with a felony conviction, a requirement to register as a sex offender, and also huge legal bills through an appeals process.

Which he or she could still lose.

I'm not going to tell Ria what to do, but if I were in her situation myself, I'd try to cop a disorderly plea with the district attorney and I'd work with my own counsel on doing so.

[Ria777]

@Pete Knight, sadly, I didn't end up as that test case. my lawyer's defense failed and I did not say anything, because I did not know about the legal happenings. (I thought that the case had gotten dismissed, end of story. and had changed my phone number without telling my lawyer. but anyway...) though the Supreme Judicial Court did take the argument seriously enough to hear it.

@usuallylurk, I have two charges now, the first one and now indecent exposure, which they added recently. so I would have to get them to not only bargain away the lewd and lascivious but also indecent exposure, too, to disorderly conduct.

further to that, I can understand the ambivalence of the NAC and the AANR to my actions. Bob Morton has given me emotional support on the phone. I can't say that we connected, though. a lot of people don't know what to make of me as a person. Bob, by the way, pretty much predicted what would happen.

I feel resigned to whatever happens. I keep on telling myself that this hasn't ended, too. truly, I want to thank everyone for their support.

by the way, I want to say that I cut back my thoughts here a bit, so as not to affect the outcome.

[Agde]

...most of these things are gotten around by copping a plea of disorderly conduct. That results in a fine, no jail time, it's not a felony, and it has no sex offender stigma... I'm not going to tell Ria what to do, but if I were in her situation myself, I'd try to cop a disorderly plea with the district attorney and I'd work with my own counsel on doing so.
Let's be clear. Ria is charged with "open and gross lewdness" under an ancient 1784 state law. The prosecution must prove, not only that modern unwilling observers had a "serious negative emotional experience", but also that her nudity while protesting against the commercialization of Christmas was both disconnected from her protest and in fact "grossly lewd." The prosecution would be in very dangerous territory if they were caught threatening her with sex offender status in order to get a face-saving disorderly conduct plea bargain.

[Ria777]

@Adge, do you work as a lawyer? I could use all the legal help I could get. Also, as another reminder (I don't mean this to sound snarky), I have two charges now. the lewd and lascivious (felony) and the indecent exposure (not a felony, but enough to put me on the first tier of the Sex Offender's Registry, as far as I understand the law). the prosecution used the meaning of lewd and lascivious that pertains to deliberately exposing myself to a group of people or to one person.

[Agde]

Ria, American law is so location specific that, even with legal training, I could/would never to presume to give you specific legal advice from afar. My comment here was merely responding to what seemed to be specific legal advice for you to give up and negotiate a plea bargain. Your lawyer is the best person to advise you.

That said, normally "lewdness" in Massachusetts requires serious sexual "intent" and behavior so I was pretty confident that you weren't intending to be lewd and lascivious. In contrast, "indecent exposure" has been applied more loosely to cases where genitals or breasts are "deliberately exposed" and, although "intent" and sexual gratification is supposedly still required, it seems to have been applied also when the intent is merely "shock value" on bystanders. Given the circumstances, you still seem to have a very strong case, but your lawyer will better know the fine lines and hidden costs/benefits of various legal choices.

So don't listen to us -- but know we care and are sincerely trying to think through this with you for the best outcome!

[Ria777]

That said, normally "lewdness" in Massachusetts requires serious sexual "intent" and behavior so I was pretty confident that you weren't intending to be lewd and lascivious.

the prosecution's argument said, roughly, lewd and lascivious can mean using one person or a group of people as the object of your nudity. they sidestepped the issue of what I intended.

also, I want to say that though the media described the protest (not just my dancing, I mean the protest generally) as against the commercialization of Christmas, it came down to more of a series of artistic riffs off of the presence of crosstianity (as George Bernard Shaw called it) in american life.

at any rate, Harvey Silverglate just said he would offer to give my lawyer advice by phone or e-mail.

[nimrod]

Once again good luck to you. Sorry to hear about the judge not dropping the felony charge it would have been easier for you if he/she had.

[usuallylurk]

the prosecution's argument said, roughly, lewd and lascivious can mean using one person or a group of people as the object of your nudity. they sidestepped the issue of what I intended.

also, I want to say that though the media described the protest (not just my dancing, I mean the protest generally) as against the commercialization of Christmas, it came down to more of a series of artistic riffs off of the presence of crosstianity (as George Bernard Shaw called it) in american life.

at any rate, Harvey Silverglate just said he would offer to give my lawyer advice by phone or e-mail.

Get and accept all the help you can get.

And if you can get this matter behind you quickly without a felony charge AND without a sex offense charge, you might want to consider that above all options.

Good luck.

[Agde]

I just read the published decision (http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=18074&sid=120) of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which sent Ria's case back to the District Court. Several times it uses the phrase "lewdness and nudity" when in fact it is just discussing lewd behavior. This is precisely the kind of legal phrase, that in essence says "nude is lewd", that NAC is usually so quick to counter.

I also read the Massachusetts "indecent exposure" law. It is so brief it can be quoted below and it even covers things like "keepers of noisy and disorderly houses." Yikes, we'd be toast in MA! :eek: Its a mystery to me how such laws still exist or are applied?

General Laws of Massachusetts - PART IV: Title 1: CHAPTER 272
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

[Skinview]

I recall of no small number of instances where people have used nudity as a protest of one thing or another. PETA has had a few celebrities pose nude for them recently. The First Amendment may apply here.

[usuallylurk]

Get and accept all the help you can get.

And if you can get this matter behind you quickly without a felony charge AND without a sex offense charge, you might want to consider that above all options.

Good luck.

I might add, in my personal, non-lawyer opinion, if I were in Ria's shoes, it would be preferable to get the matter behind me without a felony charge and without a sex offender charge (i.e., disorderly conduct, pay a modest fine, it's over) if it's at all possible, rather than being a "pioneer" or "martyr" for a cause ---

Going through life with a felony conviction on your record, or being a registered sex offender is much worse.

[meredith2kp4]

I just read the published decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/18074&invol=1/) of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which sent Ria's case back to the District Court. Several times it uses the phrase "lewdness and nudity" when in fact it is just discussing lewd behavior. This is precisely the kind of legal phrase, that in essence says "nude is lewd", that NAC is usually so quick to counter.

I also read the Massachusetts "indecent exposure" law. It is so brief it can be quoted below and it even covers things like "keepers of noisy and disorderly houses." Yikes, we'd be toast in MA! :eek: Its a mystery to me how such laws still exist or are applied?

In what century was this law adopted? From the language I would guess that it would not be later than the eighteeth century.

[Agde]

I recall of no small number of instances where people have used nudity as a protest of one thing or another. PETA has had a few celebrities pose nude for them recently. The First Amendment may apply here.
The First Amendment came up in the previous proceedings and was central to the Supreme Judicial Court sending the case back to the District Court. The main point of the Supreme Judicial Court decision was simply that the District Court was too quick to assume that the First Amendment meant that all laws regulating public nudity were by definition overly broad. This put the focus back on whether the "expressive behavior" fell under existing limitations within court defined parameters.

But there is at least one thorny problem. The way I read the case law precedents cited by the Supreme Judicial Court, the First Amendment protection can only be used if it can be shown that nudity was an essential part of the content of the "expressive behavior" of the protest. Otherwise, if the protest point could be made without nudity, the standard falls back on the more general evaluation of whether the person "recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of public exposure to others who might be offended" and who were "unsuspecting and unwilling" This seems to me a very restrictive interpretation of First Amendment protection.

It could be argued, for example, that in Ria's case, since nudity could have been viewed by her as an essential element of the anti-materialism protest message, the higher standard must be applied, even if onlookers did not get the point. Otherwise, using the lower standard would be a case of prior restraint which, as the Court also notes, is banned under Federal and other case law if the very existence of a law premptively limits "expressive behavior".

I doubt Ria's lawyer would be enthusiastic about arguing this too forcefully. It is probably more straightforward to argue that her "expressive behavior" was neither intended as nor done in a way that was "lewd and lascivious" (hence not a felony), that the nudity was an innocent part of her protest message (hence not meeting understood standards applied to sex offenders), and that it is everyone's interest put the matter to rest, as usuallylurk suggests, with minimal fuss.

Having seen all sorts of stuff around Harvard Square, I am still baffled by people believing that anyone could have been seriously perturbed. Surely anyone showing up in Harvard Square should fully expect something unexpected. And one would think that people who actually work there could be assumed to be among the world's least likely to suffer any surprise or trauma by a few "artistic riffs off of the presence of crosstianity (as George Bernard Shaw called it) in american life." Personally, I am a big fan of GBS! :)

[usuallylurk]

T and that it is everyone's interest put the matter to rest, as usuallylurk suggests, with minimal fuss.


It's in my interest to put it to rest, because I am a Massachusetts taxpayer and I do not want my tax dollars spent prosecuting (and defending it, if a defendant cannot find or afford counsel) a case like this through the court system.

It's a dumb prosecution. And a high-profile case could result in stricter, tighter anti-nudity laws and they will be re-written to pass Constitutional muster.

[Agde]

It's a dumb prosecution. And a high-profile case could result in stricter, tighter anti-nudity laws and they will be re-written to pass Constitutional muster.
There are of course two ways to view any case -- what happens to the defendent and what happens to the law. In Ria's case, probably the minimum preferred outcome from the defendent's standpoint is for there to be no criminal record and no sex offender listing. I would think that the ideal outcome for the law would be a clear statement from the judge that the 'expressive behavior" in this case could not be considered lewd and lascivious since there was no sexual intent or content, and that, while the nudity without forewarning offended the sensibility of certain observers, it was neither sexually motivated nor done in a way meant to produce alarm or shock, therefore not indecent in the sense of "indecent exposure" as a sexual offense. Such a statement would provide some case law basis to distinguish nudity as a dress code issue from nudity with a sexual purpose.

[usuallylurk]

Again, if a judge makes a ruling -- good or bad -- some nitwit up on Beacon Hill (legislature) might draft some constitutionally-bulletproof anti-nudity legislation.

We saw a legislative backlash in Virginia - backlash from the AANR Youth Camps.

People are holding their breath in Florida, because the Caliente publicity may result in some tougher anti-nudity laws.

Nude recreation advocates have been begging those with an exhibitionist slant to NOT go to Brattleboro, Vermont and walk around naked in the streets.

At this time, I don't think any high-profile cases would be beneficial to our cause.

[Ria777]

In Ria's case, probably the minimum preferred outcome from the defendent's standpoint is for there to be no criminal record and no sex offender listing.

FYI, I already had a criminal record.

more important, though, my last day in court came today.

they gave me six months probation and a $125 fine. if I go outside of the state the law says that means applying to do so with a probation officer.

the prosecution had wanted me to have one year's probation (with the same condition) and a psychiatric and psychological evaluation. the judge decided against this.

my lawyer, Danny Beck, said he had a 90% chance of getting the lawyer to get me acquitted. though I don't know if that had to do with my having such draconian conditions. (one year probation, etc.)

the law honestly, confuses me. I feel a bit sad for not taking the 90% chance. my gut said, without any ambiguity, don't go for it. of course I don't know the law and I don't know the judge as well as Danny.

anyway.

it has ended.

counting the days towards the end of probation.

[Ria777]

@usuallylurk, I actually agree with your statements. I did not think through my actions enough before I did them. if the media offer me the chance to do any more interviews, I won't describe myself as a naturist. and if I had accepted any offers to get interviewed, I wouldn't have done so then, either.

[jon71]

Well Ria I'm glad it's over for you and that it's not as bad as it might have been. I hope you recover from this well.

[Ria777]

thanks, Jon.

disappointed with myself that I did not take a chance. my instincts said to go with a sure thing.

I feel like sleeping. not that I think I will.

[nimrod]

Well Ria, I am glad it is over for you. I bet that it is a huge relief to be done. Could you have asked for better? Yes, but why risk it? I think it took courage to fight it as much as you did, and more to know when to say "I'm done.". If you had took it further I think we would have all suported you, but with a possible sex offender record hanging over your head I believe you did the right thing. If not for that I think you would have gone for it.

[Ria777]

my lawyer told me a rumor that on a federal level a bill might get passed which would make suspended without a finding equivalent to a guilty. in which case it wouldn't much matter that I got suspended without a finding. still, the law hasn't changed yet, if it ever will.

for better or worse, I did what my instinct told me to do. I immediately heard "no", inside my head when I heard my lawyer's suggestion.

[usuallylurk]

my lawyer told me a rumor that on a federal level a bill might get passed which would make suspended without a finding equivalent to a guilty. in which case it wouldn't much matter that I got suspended without a finding. still, the law hasn't changed yet, if it ever will.

for better or worse, I did what my instinct told me to do. I immediately heard "no", inside my head when I heard my lawyer's suggestion.

Doubtful that such a situation could happen (suspended, continued w/o finding = guilty) because that's a state and local issue. If the Commonwealth hasn't found someone guilty, the Feds can't make that person guilty. A continuance is a continuance, not a finding of guilt. And here in the USA , you are presumed innocent until found guilty.

The continuance is used by judges as a "sword of Damocles" -- basically = go in peace. But if you disturb the peace (as Kojak would say, "don't even pick your nose on the street"), they're going to re-activate this. It's like putting a person on probation without a finding.

At anyone's arraignment, the first thing the judge or magistrate asks -- "Any priors, or continuances, or probation?"

I saw the Phoenix story --

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/68422-Justice-on-the-hoof/

..so it was expedient and practical for all.

[Ria777]

first a comment where I repeat what I have already said, for my own benefit I suppose. then two pieces of good news.

I took the choice, as a friend said later (and that I thought too) most people would have taken.

it came down to the risk, not my spending more time for a resolution. though I did not enjoy coming into court, I wouldn't have minded doing it that much.

if they had stuck with the mandatory psychological and psychiatric evaluation, then I would have asked to proceed to trial. I loathe psychiatry. (I don't have any sympathy for the Church of Scientology or their front group the CCHR, either. the CCHR sponsored the propaganda video Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, by the way. )

the good news: my probation officer sees no point in having me register if I go out of state. he suspected that I had taken drugs before I took my clothes off in public. I told him that I hadn't. as an explanation I told him that I did it out of "stupidity" which doesn't really explain anything. he accepted this.

the other good news: I found out that as soon as my probation ends, provided I have not gotten arrested in the meantime, I can ask the judge who presided over my case to seal the record on my arrest. of course for the people who really matter (judges, etc.) can still the records. however, I can still do that. and I have no doubt that he will say yes. so sometime after March 9 I will ask to have a hearing about my sealing my record.

[Ria777]

And here in the USA , you are presumed innocent until found guilty.

on paper, maybe. I don't think it works that way in our minds.

[Skinview]

the other good news: I found out that as soon as my probation ends, provided I have not gotten arrested in the meantime, I can ask the judge who presided over my case to seal the record on my arrest. of course for the people who really matter (judges, etc.) can still the records. however, I can still do that. and I have no doubt that he will say yes. so sometime after March 9 I will ask to have a hearing about my sealing my record.

I would ask the governor for a pardon. I have no idea how likely it would be that you would get it, but you can't lose for trying. Besides, you deserve it.

[Ria777]

I had considered it. will look into it. I don't imagine a conservative Governor would say yes. don't know what Governor Massachusetts currently has.

[jon71]

The current governor is Deval Patrick, a Democrat and early Sen. Obama supporter. There'd be no harm in asking. I'd say the last conservative Mass. had was Romney but he only became a conservative when he decided to run for President, not while he was governor and the last Republican before him, William Weld, was very liberal on social issues.

[WGANude]

Sorry to be slightly off topic from helping Ria, but how are her actions different than nude events like the Nude Bike Rides and similar events. What makes those events legal?

[usuallylurk]

The current governor is Deval Patrick, a Democrat and early Sen. Obama supporter. There'd be no harm in asking. I'd say the last conservative Mass. had was Romney but he only became a conservative when he decided to run for President, not while he was governor and the last Republican before him, William Weld, was very liberal on social issues.

Massachusetts is different. The Governor cannot grant a pardon. In the Commonwealth, a somewhat-archaic body called the Governor's Council is the final say on pardons. The governor can recommend a pardon, but the Council can (and does) reject them. They also have to approve judicial appointments, and they do play politics with/against the governor at times.

In fact, when Massachusetts still had capital punishment on the books, there was a guy named Kerrigan who was facing execution through much of the 60s. He survived on a string of stays -- for years -- because the governors couldn't get a commutation through the Governor's Council.

[Ria777]

Sorry to be slightly off topic from helping Ria, but how are her actions different than nude events like the Nude Bike Rides and similar events. What makes those events legal?

because the cops find it easier to arrest one person on foot than ten (and up) on bikes?

also, to head this off before it comes up (if it does) Harvard has a naked mass run called Primal Scream, I think.

that can legally happen because, apart from only happening at Harvard itself, the public have forewarning. via Googling my own name to read up on my case I read an amusing remark to the effect of, yes, it would still happen. I guess my arrest scared some people into thinking it wouldn't any more.